Zimbabwe

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, given the loss to the Zimbabwean economy as a result of Mr Mugabe's policies, they still believe that their policy for southern Africa is viable.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, our approach to Zimbabwe has been to work to create and sustain an effective international consensus. We continue to work closely with the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and others. We consider that broad-based approach to be the right one. Ultimately, Zimbabwe's only way back to sustainable development is through respect for the rule of law, a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the past two years, Mr Mugabe has taken about 18 billion US dollars from thousands of private investors. That was done with the tacit support of leaders of neighbouring countries and is in direct contravention of what they signed up to at the recent G8 summit. Given the Minister's Answer, I want to know what, if any, good reason there is to invest in or trust those countries in the future.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are all aware of the difficult economic situation in Zimbabwe. We know that unemployment has reached 70 per cent and that there will be negative growth of 10 per cent this year. We are all concerned about that.
	I think that the noble Earl was referring to NePAD. There is a declaration on political, economic and corporate governance that is due to go to the African Union meeting next week. In it, African leaders affirm their commitment to the promotion of democracy and its core values in their respective countries. As the G8, we made it absolutely clear that we would focus our efforts only on countries in Africa that demonstrated,
	"a political and financial commitment to good governance and the rule of law, investing in their people and pursuing policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty".

Lord Acton: My Lords, as one who has spent a great deal of his life in Zimbabwe, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister is aware of how grateful I am to Britain for the generosity that it has shown to the hungry people of Zimbabwe. On 1st July, in reply to a Written Question, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that Britain was to give a further £45 million of food aid to Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. Can the Minister say how much of that £45 million is meant to be used to ease the plight of the people of Zimbabwe?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend for those comments. We have worked hard to ensure that our policy, which is to try to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe are put first, is reflected in the policies of the governments of our partner countries.
	We know that there is a humanitarian crisis and that, in the rest of southern Africa, it has much to do with drought. In Zimbabwe, it is also to do with economic mismanagement and, in particular, the fast-track land reform programme. We introduced supplementary feeding last September, before the Government of Zimbabwe recognised that there was a problem. We expect that nearly half of the £45 million will go to Zimbabwe, which would bring our total pledge of humanitarian assistance to about £32 million.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the combination of drought and mismanagement in Zimbabwe means that we are likely to have a rising problem with refugees overflowing into neighbouring countries and, possibly, coming on to this country? Are the Government already in consultation with the Government of South Africa and others about how to handle such a surge of refugees?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have kept a close eye on that. At the moment, there does not seem to be any additional refugee flow as a result of the drought and the humanitarian situation. We are, of course, in constant contact with our partners, including South Africa, and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the problem. We have contingency plans—not only for Zimbabwe but for other parts of the world—that would enable use to deal with a crucial situation.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, apart from the NePAD initiative, what measures are Her Majesty's Government taking to promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in SADC? What discussions are taking place with President Thabo Mbeki to encourage him to take a stronger and more decisive line on Zimbabwe?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been a reform programme for the Southern African Development Community, to which we have contributed. We will continue to contribute to it. Discussions with South Africa are ongoing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had discussions with his counterpart, Dr Zuma, only last week. The Prime Minister met President Mbeki at the G8 meeting in Kananaskis.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of just how astonished some of us continue to feel that the Prime Minister could, on Monday, make a Statement to the other place about African development that included not a single mention of Zimbabwe? That is at a time when there is continuing torture, misery and starvation in that country and when the Zimbabwean Government's political opponents are murdered, all of which has a disastrous effect on inward investment in the whole of southern Africa.
	Why does the Government's conscience seem to stop at the borders of Zimbabwe? Is it not now time to make a real effort to increase the sanctions, which have, so far, been dismissed as a joke, and to get together a coalition to press vigorously for fresh elections? Is it not time that something positive was done?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I refute everything that the noble Lord has said. First, we made it clear, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal repeated the Statement, that the complexity of what was in the G8 Africa plan meant that it should be read in its entirety. I advise noble Lords to examine the plan. The first two pages set out clearly the commitments being made by the G8 and by NePAD partners.
	I am astonished that the noble Lord is surprised. As I have said consistently in the House, Zimbabwe is but one country in Africa. It is important that we remember the real gains that have been made on that continent. I refute entirely the remarks made by the noble Lord.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—

Lord Blaker: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the last questioner was from the Conservative Benches.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister say how the successful ceasefire in Angola called on 4th April, following more than 30 years of war, is being supported by Her Majesty's Government? What are we doing to promote stability? What are the Government's policies on de-mining, the internally displaced population and the situation of families in the quartering of family areas?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we remain concerned by the humanitarian situation in Angola. We are pleased at the progress that has been made in the peace efforts. I had a meeting this morning with an Angolan MP. We will continue our efforts.

Financial Reporting Standard 17

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What effect they expect Financial Reporting Standard 17 (FRS 17) to have on charities.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Accounting Standards Board has announced a delay to the introduction of FRS 17 following the decision of the International Accounting Standards Board to review IAS 19, the equivalent international standard. Organisations, including charities, will now not have to change their accounting practices twice to introduce FRS 17 by 2003 and a new international standard in 2005. Charities will have the opportunity to make their views known on the standard that will apply to them from 2005.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I should declare an interest as the chairman of a corporate pension fund, although it is not a charity. Does the Minister agree that, while greater transparency in company accounts is highly desirable, the FRS 17 proposal—rightly or wrongly—has brought about a number of unfortunate side effects? Does he further agree that charities are especially vulnerable because they do not normally hold extensive reserves which would lay them open to the charge that they were not fulfilling their functions or, if they were seen to have large reserves, donations might decline? Their assets are often restricted by trusts, deeds and so forth.
	The noble Lord points out that implementation of FRS 17 has been delayed. Given that, is there not a case for waiting until we adopt the international European standard, which might have less of an impact on charities? In the meantime, perhaps we should proceed as we are at present.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, no one would argue against improved transparency either in company or charitable accounts. Clearly, charities also have a duty to their stakeholders. Without going into further detail, FRS 17 has been extremely challenging in its introduction.
	The noble Lord made two points with regard to whether all charities are exposed. Of course not all charities have defined benefits schemes; those which do not will not be vulnerable. I understand that the intention is for IAS 19 to be converged by the ASB, but at present we are not certain exactly what IAS 19 will look like. However, we have gained a useful breathing space for reflection and, it is hoped, for negotiation and influence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this issue is a problem for charities mainly in relation to the funding of pensions? Does he further accept that many funders of charities are reluctant—to put it mildly—to contribute a fair share of the pension overheads of charities with employees in pensions?
	Will the Government set a good example in this regard by demonstrating that they are willing to make a full contribution towards the pension and other employment overheads of charities when contracting with or funding them? It has to be pointed out that, at the moment, that is far from being universally the case.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, at times the issues of the funding of pensions and FRS 17 can become interconnected. Clearly there is an issue with regard to the cash funding of the pension scheme on which an employer has determined, irrespective of the accountancy treatment. As an employer, any charity must think carefully and prudently about the package of employment benefits it thinks it needs and can afford to offer.
	With regard to the first question put by the noble Lord, asking whether the Government will in effect sign a blank cheque to fund all such pension schemes—perhaps that was not quite what he said—the answer is no. However, we are looking at the whole issue, both in the cost-cutting and the PIU reviews on charities. We expect to produce some interesting publications in the autumn about how policies towards charities and the voluntary sector are to be developed in the future.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the implications of the delay in the introduction of FRS 17? Is it not true that reserves still have to be shown in the accounts? Therefore, the point made with regard to the reserves held by charities is valid, irrespective of anything the Government may have done with regard to postponing the introduction of FRS 17.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is right. The noble Baroness has gone to the point I sought to make. Irrespective of the accountancy treatment, a company or a charity has to be able to meet its liabilities as they fall due, including pension liabilities. I understand that until FRS 17 or its equivalent is brought in, a note will be put to the accounts making a statement about the estimated assets and liabilities of a pension fund. The information will still be available in the accounts, but it will not be quite such a painful presence on the balance sheet.

Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in understanding that FRS 17 rests on the principle of the worst case scenario? It assumes that all liabilities will become due at once; it assumes that defined pension liabilities will all become due at the moment of entitlement; and it further assumes that charities will be able to dispose of their assets when in fact, in law, many of them will not be able to do so. Am I also right in thinking that anything that can assume such a concatenation of worst case scenarios all happening at once deserves the comment of Winnie-the-Pooh:
	"'Supposing it didn't?', said Winnie-the-Pooh, after some thought"?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I feel that my knowledge of Winnie-the-Pooh is stronger than that of the intricacies of the accountancy presentation of pensions. For that reason, I shall write to the noble Earl rather than go into the full details.

Primary Care Trusts

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the transfer of powers from health authorities to primary care trusts has been satisfactorily completed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on 1st April 2002, 139 new primary care trusts were established, to make a total of 303. There was only one remaining primary care group at that time. The transfer of functions from health authorities to primary care trusts is well under way and early indications are that primary care trusts are progressing well.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords—

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I welcome warmly the Government's very radical reorganisation and transfer of powers to primary care trusts because that will certainly reduce the bureaucracy involved in dealing with sick and disabled people. However, because the trusts are inexperienced, is there not a danger that they may deal exclusively with high-profile illnesses and disabilities and neglect the relatively unpopular conditions? Will my noble friend use performance indicators to ensure that that does not happen? Will he further seek to ensure that, as best he can, he will give general guidance to the PCTs on the points that I have raised?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the question of performance indicators, the first set are due to be published later this year. It is clear that we need to strike a balance in this area. The whole point of devolving authority to primary care trusts is to ensure that GPs and other primary care staff have a much greater input into key decision-making. In many ways that is the best answer to the questions put by my noble friend. GPs experience the sicknesses of many patients day in, day out. I believe that the commissioning decisions reached by PCTs will be best informed by the experience of GPs. However, of course we shall ensure that if, through commissioning decisions, services are being missed out, we have a performance management regime to enable us to intervene where we have to do so.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Secretary of State has pledged that primary care trusts will be responsible for dispensing 75 per cent of the health service budget. When will that become a reality?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are aiming for that to take place in 2004.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the transfer of authority and funding from health authorities to primary care trusts is preserving adequately the needs of tertiary and highly specialised treatments in our hospitals? Furthermore, is he satisfied that the problems related to teaching and research are being properly addressed now that we are increasing the number of medical students being admitted to our medical schools?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much accept the point made by the noble Lord on the question of specialised commissioning. We do expect some primary care trusts to take a leading role in their health communities, but we also have in place national specialist commissioning arrangements.
	With regard to teaching and research, it is in the interests of everyone working in the National Health Service to support those activities. We shall not get the high-quality doctors, nurses and other staff we need unless we do so. I fully expect primary care trusts to support teaching and research programmes. The noble Lord will know that we have agreed to a joint review to be conducted by ourselves and the DfES to look at those aspects which are presently causing concern.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question concerns local out-workings in the context of shifting responsibilities. Will the Minister comment on what many people in Portsmouth see as a disastrous scenario—that is, the possible closure of the Haslar hospital in Gosport and the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham on an already over-crowded site with sometimes chronic traffic problems in the vicinity? In the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a veritable expedition to the North Pole.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising the issue, which I know he feels keenly. The whole point of what we are trying to do with primary care trusts is to decentralise decisions down to local level. Within Portsmouth the local primary care trust will have much more influence in the future, informed by the experience by general practitioners, who are in turn informed by what patients think. So far as concerns the specific issue, we shall look very carefully at the points raised by the right reverend Prelate.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that primary care trusts, with their welcome emphasis on patient and public involvement, will be well placed to monitor all the health needs of the communities they serve, including what my noble friend calls the "unpopular" ones? What are the Government's plans for evaluating and disseminating the information collected by PCTs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Primary care trusts will be helped by the enhanced arrangements for public and patient involvement in decisions at the local level through the creation of patients forums. As regards information about good practice, we are committed to a large programme of dissemination of such information. Primary care trusts will be fully a part of that programme.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware—

Lord Taverne: My Lords—

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have asked one question; we have not. Is the Minister aware that every reorganisation involves some redundancies because people find themselves in positions for which they are no longer suitable? When the GPs changed to primary trusts, a good deal of expense was involved in meeting redundancy costs. Who will be responsible for meeting these costs if the same situation arises? Has this part of the operation been adequately funded?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have made available more than £60 million to support the establishment of primary care trusts. Responsibility for staff redundancies will be transferred to the relevant authority. That is no different from any other reorganisation. Since we came into office in 1997 we have made great strides towards reducing the amount of money spent on bureaucracy—but not, I hasten to add, at the expense of investing in high quality management. I draw a distinction between the two.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a trust concerned with the treatment of drug addicts. Is the Minister aware that the transfer of funding to primary care trusts has caused chaos in the payments to many charities, which is causing extreme financial embarrassment to some. These charities are very much concerned in dealing with one of our most pressing social problems. Will the Minister look at this issue?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that. I shall be very happy to investigate. I am very keen to see stability in the funding and support by the health service of voluntary organisations in order that they may know what is likely to be their funding, not only for a year ahead but for a longer period. That is entirely consistent with the long-term spending review for the health service that we have already announced.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I apologise for my untimely and inappropriately early intervention. Have those in primary care trusts been adequately trained to fulfil their function of ensuring equity in the monitoring of uniformly high standards, especially in relation to the care and protection of children and the care of the vulnerable and elderly?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer is yes. While ensuring that there is a uniform provision of service throughout the NHS, we must also ensure that primary care trusts have sufficient flexibility to make their own decisions in the light of local circumstances.

Accounting Standards

Lord Boardman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their proposals for ensuring that there is transparency in United Kingdom company accounts.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government believe that the UK's accounting standards already provide for a high degree of transparency in company accounts, although in a world of increasingly complex transactions we must not be complacent.
	A number of measures are in hand to build on the existing position. These include the recommendations of the company law review, the move to international accounting standards and the group chaired by DTI and Treasury Ministers which was formed in February to co-ordinate the response of key regulators to issues of accounting, auditing and aspects of corporate governance raised in the aftermath of Enron. This group will produce an interim report by the end of July.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not regret that the Government set a bad example by keeping billions of pounds of borrowing off their balance sheet? As to company law, the subject of my Question, does he consider that chairmen of companies should be required to take a greater responsibility—and perhaps a personal responsibility—for the fairness of the accounts. After all, chairmen recommend to shareholders the accountants they wish to appoint. They also appoint senior executives, some of whom, no doubt, will be aware of any imperfections in the accounts. These matters require considerable consideration.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these are exactly the kind of complicated questions the group is looking at and on which it is co-ordinating various expert views.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that those firms which may be involved in the inquiries he envisages do not themselves suffer from the very defects about which he is complaining?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the work we are doing at the moment involves co-ordinating the expert advice of various bodies. I do not think the particular issues we are talking about in terms of accounting standards apply to those bodies, which are, by and large, statutory bodies involved in controlling and regulating the profession.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister accept that company accounts in this country generally present a truer and fairer view than those in the United States—not because British businessmen and accountants are straighter than their American counterparts but because we learnt the lessons of our own Enrons and WorldComs five or 10 years ago? They were called Barings, BCCI and, above all, Maxwell.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is probably a fair judgment. I do not believe that you can make a comparison. In this instance, we had both problems and solutions, in some cases, earlier on. Of course, as has been pointed out, the basis of accounting is in some critical ways different. The American system has some very specific rules whereas the British system is principle-based and auditors have to give a view as to whether there is a true and fair account of the economic situation.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what has happened with accounting practices, in America and elsewhere, is too serious for party political exchanges? It could happen here. I am glad that my noble friend is not complacent, but does he accept that it is less a matter for government intervention than for intervention by the major financial institutions, which select the non-executive directors who sit on the audit committees of major companies in the UK? If he is going to do anything at all, will my noble friend intervene by telling these major financial institutions—which may in practice control most of the FTSE 100 companies—that they should intervene more frequently to ensure that the non-executive directors are doing the right job?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for that view. However good the rules, unless there are people in the company who independently will enforce those rules and insist that the right things are done, many of the rules will be a complete waste of time. My noble friend is right to point out that the financial institutions which control many of the shares are undoubtedly in the best position to ensure that the non-executives fulfil their responsibilities properly.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is right when he says that public accounts are too important to be dealt with in a party political way. Is it not true that the Government do exactly that? This Government call spending "investment"; call benefits "credits"; and call tax "insurance". By using those accounting practices, the Government massaged down the politically sensitive figure for the UK tax burden—and would still be doing that today if they had not been stopped by the Office for National Statistics. Is that not the reason for the Chief Adviser to the Treasury—the Government's own adviser—writing this comment? I quote:
	"Reader understanding of financial reports in the public sector is sometimes felt by those who compile them to be a disadvantage".

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, was specifically about UK company accounts. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, always wants to make his little speech about deficiencies that he sees in the public accounts but the original Question was about company accounts.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	There has been considerable worry about late Written Answers, which has been taken seriously by the committee. At the end of the day, there is not much that we can do if departments refuse to answer. We suggest that there may be a way around some of the confusion, where there has been a certain amount of pass-the-parcel from department to department. We hope that the system that is being implemented will be of some assistance.
	The comments on appellations simply repeat what is in the Companion. If I may say so, the habits of the House have been in decline for some time and that section of the report is an attempt by the committee to get people back into line. I do wish that Members would stop referring to "the noble Minister" when they should refer to "the noble Lord the Minister".
	Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 137).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I welcome the inclusion of the paragraph about appellations and will add to the noble Lord Chairman's remarks. I hope that the appellation "the noble Lord X" will also be dropped. The correct term is "the noble Lord, Lord X". Also, while the table of appellations has been taken from the Companion, is it correct in the case of marquesses? The appellation shown is "the noble Marquess (the Marquess of . . .)". Surely that should be "the noble Marquess, Lord X". If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will say so.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was delighted to see that the Select Committee has reaffirmed that correct appellations should be used. Too often one hears a Member refer to "the noble Lord, Earl so and so", "the noble Earl so and so" or "the noble Minister"—which, as the noble Lord Chairman said, is a mistake. We all get into muddles and make mistakes, which is understandable—provided that it is a mistake and not done on purpose. One member of the Government Front Bench perpetually seems to leave out the appellation "the noble Lord". One might think that he does so on purpose. I refer to a very distinguished noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. I mean, the noble Lord the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, my Lords.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am so grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. It is odd that the noble Lord so often leaves out the word "noble". As we get older, we get befuddled and make mistakes. Perhaps the noble Lord is entering that territory. I somehow doubt it. It rather looks like a private campaign. As the noble Lord is so concerned that I should refer to him correctly as the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, I hope that he will observe the niceties and refer to your Lordships as "the noble Lord" or "the noble Earl" as appropriate. If not, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will correct the noble Lord the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, tow him into line and say, "You may be having a campaign of your own, but while you are on the Government Front Bench, you must abide by the Government's views".

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, as we accord to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force the appellation of "noble and gallant", is it not to be regretted, if and when the senior military officer in this country—the Chief of the Defence Staff—may be invited to join the House, that he should not also be referred to as a noble and gallant Lord?

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I too welcome the section on forms of address. Is the committee likely to take on board the need to remind Members that when the Lord Chancellor, Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman is on his or her feet, other noble Lords are required to remain seated? That convention seems largely to have been forgotten.

Lord Roper: My Lords, my understanding was that the committee has already reported on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. We have before us the Companion as it stands, without the amendment that the committee has already made.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. I had spotted that point myself. As the noble says, the committee has agreed that former Chiefs of the Defence Staff shall be referred to in your Lordships' House as "noble and gallant".
	I will not enter into debate on the point put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. That matter is for the person involved. It is not the job of the Chairman of Committees to correct individuals.
	As to references to "the noble Marquess", that is the appellation in the Companion as it stands at the moment. We fear that there was an error in the latest edition because previous editions have it exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would wish. I may say in passing that I have not seen many marquesses around recently.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Following is the report referred to:
	1. Late answers to Questions for Written Answer
	The Companion to Standing Orders stipulates that questions for written answer are expected to be answered within a fortnight (paragraph 4.108). In recent sessions many written questions have remained unanswered after three weeks and some have remained unanswered for over five months. It appears that one reason for the delays in answering is disagreement among some government departments about who is responsible for answering written questions since they are addressed to "Her Majesty's Government" and not to any particular minister or department.
	In order to improve this situation we recommend the following new procedure.
	Questions will continue to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government but on receipt of a written question the clerks will make a provisional allocation to a government department. The department will have 24 hours in which to ask for the question to be reallocated on the ground that another department accepts responsibility for it. Thereafter, in the composite list of questions for written answer published daily on the Internet and weekly in paper form with the House of Lords Minutes, the department to which the question has been allocated will be indicated by initials printed alongside the question.
	The present practice is to reprint daily in the House of Lords Minute, 21 days after a question has been tabled, those questions on which answers are overdue. If the above recommendation is agreed to, the initials of the departments would be printed alongside the question and this would make public the identity of departments that are late in answering.
	2. Appellations
	There has been an increasing failure by members of the House to observe the conventions when referring to other members of the House in debate. The Committee reminds the House that the correct forms of address are set out in paragraph 4.39 of the Companion as follows:
	
		
			  
			 Archbishop of the Church of England "the most reverend Primate (the Archbishop of . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Bishop of the Church of England "the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Duke "the noble Duke (the Duke of . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Marquess "the noble Marquess (the Marquess of . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Earl "the noble Earl (Lord . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Countess "the noble Countess (Lady . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Viscount "the noble Viscount (Lord . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Baron "the noble Lord (Lord . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Baroness or Lady "the noble Baroness (Lady . . .)" or "the noble Lady (Lady . . .)" 
			  
			  
			 Members with rank of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and holders of the Victoria or George Cross "the noble and gallant . . ." (service rank is not referred to) 
			  
			  
			 Lord Chancellor, Lords of Appeal, Law Officers of the Crown, Judges of superior courts in the United Kingdom or former holder of these offices "the noble and learned . . ." 
			  
			  
			 Archbishops and Bishops of other Churches who are Members of the House "the noble and right reverend Lord" 
			  
			  
			 Former Archbishops or Bishops subsequently made Members of the House "the noble and right reverend Lord . . ." 
			  
			  
			 Fellow member of a political party "my noble friend" (instead of one of the above descriptions) 
			  
			  
			 Relatives "my noble kinsman . . ." or "my noble relative . . ." (precise relationship is not mentioned) 
			  
		
	
	3. Application of the rotation rule and of Standing Order 64
	All of the House's sessional committees are subject to a rotation rule whereby committee members retire after either three or four sessions' service. Such members are eligible for reappointment after the lapse of one session. We recommend that a four-session rotation rule should apply to the two new select committees appointed by the House in February and March 2001, namely, the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee.
	If this recommendation is agreed to, a transitional arrangement will be needed to avoid the simultaneous retirement of all members of both committees, except the chairmen, in 2004. We recommend therefore that four members of each committee should be rotated off by the end of session 2002-03 and four more at the end of session 2003-04. The normal rotation rule should then operate from the end of session 2004-05.
	Standing Order 64 allows those sessional committees to which it applies (and their sub-committees) to continue to meet at the start of a new session pending appointment of the new committee. We recommend that the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee be added to the list of committees in Standing Order 64.
	4. Amendments to standing orders on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
	We recommend the following changes to standing orders to take account of recent legislation and changes made by the House of Commons to their standing orders, as notified to this House in the Commons Message of 20 May.
	Standing Order 40 (arrangement of the order paper)
	In paragraph (6) leave out "on a draft order laid under section, 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or"
	This amendment is needed because no further orders will be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and this reference is therefore unnecessary.
	Standing Order 64 (sessional committees)
	Leave out "Deregulation" and insert "Regulatory Reform"
	This amendment is consequential on the change in the name of this Committee to Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, following the coming into force of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
	Standing Order 72 (affirmative instruments)
	For Standing Order 72(1) substitute:
	"72.—(1) No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until:
	(a) except in the case of any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, or a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, or a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
	(b) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and
	(c) in the case of a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
	Provided that the report is laid
	(i) in the case of a draft remedial order, within 60 days of the laying of the draft order or
	(ii) in the case of an order not approved in draft, within 119 days of making the order,
	such periods to be calculated in the manner prescribed by Schedule 2 to the Act; and
	(d) in the case of a Hybrid Instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated."
	This amended version of SO 72(1) reflects the fact that the Northern Ireland Act 2000 supersedes the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and that no further orders will be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The reference to "any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001" is inserted to ensure that the standing orders of the House of Lords relating to affirmative instruments are in line with similar standing orders of the House of Commons.
	Standing Order 73 (joint committee on statutory instruments)
	In paragraph (1) leave out "Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "Northern Ireland Act 2000.
	This amendment is needed because the Northern Ireland Act 2000 supersedes the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
	In paragraph (1) leave out "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994".
	This amendment reflects the fact that no further orders will be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
	In paragraph (1) after "Human Rights Act 1998" insert "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act".
	This amendment is needed because any draft order made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 is considered by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and not by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
	5. Terms of reference of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
	The terms of reference of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also need to be updated in the light of the expiry for practical purposes of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. We recommend the following revised terms of reference:
	"To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders and subordinate provisions orders laid under that Act, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."

House of Lords Reform

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Commons message of 20th June be now considered, and that a committee of 12 Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on issues relating to House of Lords Reform;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Archer of Sandwell,
	V. Bledisloe,
	L. Brooke of Alverthorpe,
	L. Carter,
	L. Forsyth of Drumlean,
	B. Gibson of Market Rasen,
	L. Goodhart,
	L. Howe of Aberavon,
	L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay,
	B. O'Cathain,
	E. Selborne,
	L. Weatherill;
	That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 9th July at half-past ten o'clock in Committee Room 20.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House or the approval of the House for the Motion, but noble Lords will have noted from the Minutes of the Committee of Selection that sat on 10th June that I moved— and lost, on the casting vote of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees—an amendment seeking to increase Cross Bench representation on the 24-strong Joint Committee from just two to three members. I owe it to the House to explain my reasons for that untoward step.
	I make it clear that I imply absolutely no criticism of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. My Motion, having collected an equality of votes for and against my proposition, presented the noble Lord with a most difficult situation. He dealt with it entirely correctly as he should, and my Motion was defeated. Nor would it be right for me, at the risk of delaying the establishment of this important Joint Committee, to attempt to persuade your Lordships to invite the Committee of Selection to reconsider its recommendations.
	For some years, by custom and practice it has been conventional for the usual channels and the Committee of Selection to work to an allocation ratio of two:two:one:one—that is, two each for the Government and main Opposition parties, and one each for the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers for every six members on committees. I asked the Library to research whether there was any record of the introduction of a 2:2:1:1 ratio. It found none; and it found only two specific references in Hansard to the ratio—both by me, as it happens, in recent weeks.
	There have been variations in the allocations on a very few committees when Cross-Bench numbers have been better than the 2:2:1:1 ratio would allow. But the Cross-Bench share on those committees was not unreasonable or excessive for the number of Peers who sit on these Benches.
	Noble Lords will recall that the latest totals are: 219 Conservative; 192 Labour; 65 Liberal Democrat; 26 Bishops; and 180 Cross-Benchers—almost three times the Liberal Democrat numbers, and now 24 per cent of the total House of 690 Peers, if the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are excluded.
	Some will suggest that party/group representation on committees follows no more than a loose convention which is in many cases ignored. My experience in the two and a half years that I have been Convenor is that 2:2:1:1 is not ignored. It has almost invariably been the starting-point for discussion on forming any new committee and has not infrequently been the end result.
	The make-up of many sessional and other long-standing committees was also settled some years ago. Rotation of members on these committees follows a tradition of replacing one for one from party or Cross-Bench group. So the shares of membership of these committees is little changed over many Sessions and has not kept pace with changes in the composition of the House.
	My rationale for raising committee membership allocations is that, as Convenor of 180 Cross-Bench Peers, I should like to see—a view backed by noble Lords on these Benches—their numbers and expertise deployed to the benefit of the House and the country. With the considerable changes in your Lordships' House since the end of 1999—in its make-up; in the introduction of the independent appointments commission Peers; and in the widely acknowledged part that a strong independent element plays in the second Chamber—I felt that only two independent members on a Joint Committee of 24 on Lords reform was insufficient. I had to accept that it would not be possible to increase the total numbers on the committee, nor to press for the Labour share of 12 members of the Joint Committee to be reduced to make room for another Cross-Bench member. The Motion that I moved in the Committee of Selection was the only option available to me.
	I have argued, and will continue to argue, in the usual channels and elsewhere for an approach that would allow for fairer Cross-Bench representation as well as, when appropriate, representation from the Bishops Benches or from non-grouped Peers—the so-termed "others".
	I have drawn encouragement from expressions of greater willingness to be flexible in the sharing of membership of committees. Thus, I hopefully assume that the 2:2:1:1 ratio will not be the accepted norm from which departures are difficult or impossible to achieve, however well justified.
	If that had been the case in settling the membership of the Leader's Group on Working Practices or in the make-up proposals for the Joint Committee on Lords Reform which are now before the House, I should not have had to trouble your Lordships today.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, those of us on these Benches are pleased that we have moved to form this committee to seek progress on the reform of this House. As I understand it, there is a desire, expressed in this process, to draw together our several voices to find, if possible, a way forward which wins widespread consent. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I am therefore disappointed that a mechanism has not been found for including someone from these Benches to contribute to the committee.
	The composition of this House touches upon two crucial aspects of our constitution: the nature of our parliamentary democracy and the establishment of the Church. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made it very clear in this House on 22nd May that the Government have no desire to enter into the minefield of disestablishment. He said:
	"it would be an enormously complex undertaking to pull out the threads of the established status of the Church of England without damaging the tapestry of the constitution".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 812.]
	The presence of Bishops in this House is part of that constitutional tapestry. We have sovereignty in this country vested in the Crown in Parliament under God. In our own particular history that is expressed in the structure of this House. Radical changes in these arrangements could lead to the unravelling of other aspects of the constitutional settlement.
	In the contributions made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in the Wakeham Commission, and in all the speeches made from these Benches on the reform of this House, it has been made very clear that we wish to play a constructive part in achieving an acceptable and principled reform. We are wholly committed to finding a representative and credible shape for the future of this House.
	The Bishops are here not primarily to speak for the Church of England, narrowly conceived as a denomination, but for the spiritual and moral needs of the whole community. That is why we have stood for holding on to the best of our inheritance as we seek a more representative and inclusive shape to the whole House, including its spiritual aspects.
	Contributions have already been made which indicate that we might have some practical ideas about how this can be achieved. I therefore find it extraordinary in the light of this history that a mechanism has not been found for these Benches to be at the table and contributing throughout the whole discussion. I cannot see how the task can be done in our absence.
	Yes, it will involve more work for one of our number, already busy in the Lord's vineyard. But if there is a desire and a way can be found, it can be done. Do we not have a collective responsibility in this House to ensure that all the aspects of our shared life are participating in questions concerning its future shape? The failure to include this perspective will make the task much harder; it risks the inadvertent opening up of issues that will lead us into difficulty; and it will mean that we are less likely to deliver a solution. Failure to find a solution which strengthens our parliamentary life in the 21st century would be very bad news for our people.
	I regret having to speak in such strong terms. We have a duty on these Benches to seek to fulfil the role entrusted to us, and we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that the richness of what this means is not only preserved but shaped for the emerging needs of the people. I hope that we may hear some constructive responses to these concerns.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I have no wish to delay the passage of this Motion. But like the noble and gallant Lord, I, too, was sorry that the Committee of Selection decided on the ratio that it did as regards the Cross-Benchers and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	I have the greatest respect for the Liberal Democrats, sometimes even some admiration. But so far as concerns the numbers in this House, it would have been more appropriate had three Cross-Benchers been proposed for the committee and perhaps, therefore, only one noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Be that as it may, the committee decided as it did, and that is that.
	I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about the absence of a Bishop from the Joint Committee. It would have been highly appropriate to have a Bishop on the committee. I am very sorry that it has been decided otherwise. It will no doubt be said that we should have had to sacrifice one member from one or other of the political groupings in this House. But why should that be so? Why could not a right reverend Prelate be added to the list? It is perhaps too late for that. None the less, I confirm my considerable disappointment, very much for the reasons expressed by the right reverend Prelate, that there is no Bishop on the list that is before the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said that it is perhaps too late for that. I have no wish to make things difficult for the Chairman of Committees, of whom I am an admirer, but we have now heard from the Convenor of 180 or so Members of your Lordships' House, and from a spokesman of 25 Members of your Lordships' House—a total of more than 200 Members—that they are not satisfied with the Motion. I wonder, therefore, whether this is the right moment to put the Question or whether the committee should reconsider.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in case your Lordships think that it is has influenced my opinions, may I say that I have been in Parliament for 57 years—34 years in the other place and 23 years here? During those 57 years, I have seen the amount of representation of people accustomed to responsibility decline at various times in another place. There was a time when every profession was well represented. There were nearly always about 20 Queen's Counsel. At the beginning of this Parliament, however, the Government could not find a Queen's Counsel in the other place fit to be appointed Attorney-General, nor one fit to be appointed Solicitor-General. We now have the advantage of the Attorney-General being in your Lordships' House. Numerous other changes have taken place during that time.
	On the other hand, your Lordships' House has not only retained the eminence that it had years ago before many changes were made; it is now truly representative of the professions, business, farming and land-owning. Whatever responsibility is required can be found among your Lordships. The remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, about representation of Cross-Benchers are very important. Like my noble friend, I agree entirely with what the right reverend Prelate said too. It would be very unfortunate if the representation of your Lordships' House was inadequate and not representative. Therefore, I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter.
	I turn to the detail of the powers being given. I agree broadly with the last five. However, the first one states:
	"That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman"
	It seems to me to be wrong that the Lords' representatives on the committee will have to agree, even if they do not. I should have thought that they should have the power to agree or disagree and the matter could then be referred back to both Houses for a better solution. I hope that I have said enough to prompt reconsideration of the issue.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I support my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley. Every authoritative voice on second Chamber reform has said how important it is to have a strong independent element in this House. We have heard that there are 180 Cross-Benchers as against a total roll of 690. It is therefore extraordinary that there are only two Cross-Bench Peers in a committee of 24. Despite the temptation, it is right not to seek today to challenge the decision, arrived at incidentally only by a casting vote, of the Committee of Selection.
	I emphasise that I am grateful that there is a new spirit abroad to challenge and, ultimately overthrow, the infamous 2:2:1:1 formula, which, for far too long, has dominated the selection of some—not all—important committees in the House. Flexibility, common sense and a duty to be seen to be fair should be the guiding principles as we enter a new age in this House. I look forward to that flexibility taking account of the strength and diversity which exists on these Benches. I wish the committee well in its Herculean task. It is not too much to say that the health of the parliamentary estate very much lies in its hands.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always difficult to get a fair balance of people to form a committee. I understand the Cross-Benchers feeling as they do. My concern lies with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. It is a thousand pities that the bishops are not incorporated in this committee at all. They form a unique part of the House; their experience is totally different from that of everyone else; and they bring a breath of fresh and different air to the House. We may not always agree with them but that does not matter, especially when they are already threatened with being emasculated from 25 to 16, or whatever the figure is. They should have been included on the committee: it is a great pity that this brand of Peer is not incorporated. I hope that those in charge will think again.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Committee of Selection which made the decision. I hope that the House will accept its views.
	I do not know the individual opinions of any members of the committee as regards the form of this place. Perhaps I know the opinions of one or two, but not those of most members. However, I know that they are people of integrity and honesty who will do their best to listen to, and reflect, the views of all parts of the House. I hope that that will be seen as the basis on which the committee will proceed. Otherwise, we would be saying that we have no confidence in Members of this House or the committee because we do not think that they will fully take account of the views of the Cross-Benchers or bishops.
	I reject that. I have full confidence that all those who sit on the committee will seek the views of others. I am quite sure that the bishops will be asked to give evidence to the committee, and that it will reflect in detail the views that we have heard expressed here. I believe that the Committee of Selection has got it right. I have full confidence in it; I hope the House has too.

Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, in view of the anxieties that have been expressed, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees can give any indication of whether special priority will be accorded those who are not members of the committee to give evidence to it at an early stage.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I shall be brief as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reflected my remarks. I have much sympathy with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said. I recognise the contribution that Cross-Benchers make to the work of the House. None the less, I believe that the Committee of Selection reached the right decision. We had difficulty in considering the matter raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. The constructive way in which he put his points today reinforces our concerns, but our hope was that once the committee had been established it would be able to take views as fully as possible, especially those of the Bench of Bishops.
	I hope that those noble Lords who will be nominated to serve on the committee, having heard the debate, will find ways in which to do that.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Committee of Selection. Both in the committee and more widely we were extremely sympathetic to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord the Convenor of the Cross Benches. Indeed, we supported the points that he made by voices and votes. As has been said, the committee was deadlocked, so the chairman had to cast his vote, leading to the decision we are discussing today.
	We thought it important that on this committee there should be a substantial representation of the independent element of your Lordships' House and also of Parliament as a whole. There is little or no equivalent to the Cross Benches in another place. We thought it important not least because of the importance attached by everyone—the Royal Commission and others—who made proposals. Most proposals lay emphasis on the importance of an independent element in the reformed House.
	The Committee of Selection took its decision and we have no amendments before us today. We were sympathetic to the position of the bishops, as set out by the right reverend Prelate. It is important that the views of the bishops who are our colleagues in this House, as well as the faith communities more widely, should be taken into account by the Joint Committee. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues will give evidence in writing, verbally and in person on those points. They will be listened to with care.
	One of the proposed powers of the Joint Committee is that of appointing specialist advisers. It could perhaps consider appointing a number of special advisers to determine whether some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford can be taken into account in its deliberations.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that the words spoken in this House today are listened to by all members of the Joint Committee. They are obviously sincerely and properly held. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his comments about my vote in the Committee of Selection. I was faced with a difficult situation. One Member of your Lordships' House described my action as despicable. I am sorry that the Member concerned felt that way.
	As chairman, I had to maintain the status quo; I did that. Whether I agreed with the status quo is a different matter. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the status quo relied on a 2:2:1:1 split for a considerable time. It is not for me to tell the usual channels what changes there should be, even if I believe that there should be changes. Neither of the two larger parties in your Lordships' House offered a seat to Cross Benchers or bishops.
	I have considerable sympathy with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. There was a serious discussion in the Committee of Selection on that very issue. It did not go unnoticed. The only comfort I can offer him is that I hope there will be an opportunity for evidence to be taken. However, I believe that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for an early evidence-taking session may not be the case. As I understand it, the first phase of the committee's work will be to sort out the possible options. It will then move on from there.
	However, there is a lot of evidence, and much time has been taken in producing evidence in relation to the reform of your Lordships' House. The Royal Commission contained a Member of the Bench of Bishops in the shape of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford who made a big contribution. His chairmanship and membership of various committees is a good example of the way in which Members of the Bench of Bishops contribute to your Lordships' House. We are extremely grateful.
	I cannot take the House much further at this stage. I sincerely hope that what has been said today will be conveyed by our representatives and made plain to Members of another place and the whole committee. I hope that careful attention will be paid to their remarks. The question of the split between the major parties, the minor party and the Cross Benches is a matter for another day; it is not a matter for me.

Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he suggesting that the House should now reach a decision to approve the Motion that he has put forward? In spite of what has been said, is he excluding the possibility that the matter should be adjourned for a few days so that the matters mentioned can be borne in mind and the Motion improved accordingly?

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I would have no confidence that if it went back to the Committee of Selection any different solution would be achieved. To rebalance these matters will take rather longer than between now and next week. Therefore, the answer is yes, I have moved the Motion as it stands.
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [HL]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Mobile Telephones (Reprogramming) Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Possession or supply of anything for re-programming purposes]:

Lord Campbell-Savours: moved the amendment:
	Page 1, line 18, leave out from "be" to ", and" in line 20 and insert "in conjunction with equipment capable of interfering with the operation of unique device identifier be used for such purposes"

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long. The Minister will know that I raised in Committee the whole question of what would happen in the event that a cable was the item referred to as "anything" in Clause 2(1)(a). I shall read the clause as I imagine it might be read in the minds of those who are faced with whether a prosecution could take place:
	"he has in his custody or under his control anything"—
	which I refer to as a cable—
	"which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".
	Following the Committee stage I raised that whole question with Nokia and the mobile industry crime action group. Indeed, I met representatives of the action group in the House a couple of days ago. While they do not fully subscribe to the case that I make, they certainly understood the point and said that it was the subject of substantial debate in the department when the consultations were taking place. My argument is that a cable, in conjunction with a cache of 20, 30 or 40 telephones, might, in the minds of a prosecuting authority, be sufficient to warrant bringing a prosecution. My noble friend will no doubt say that he believes that that is not the case, but I can imagine circumstances in which it might well be the case. I can give my noble friend one example. With advances in science and developing technology, the printed circuitry may be involved in the cable and not necessarily in a PC. Such a cable, along with a cache of phones, might well be the basis on which a prosecution is called.
	For the purpose of greater clarity at this stage, when such technology is not in place, I am asking that a clear message be sent to those who take these decisions as to what evidence should be taken into account when a prosecution is brought. The amendment refers specifically to the additional equipment taken in conjunction with a cable that would have to be in place along with a cache of phones before a prosecution was bought.
	I should also point out that there is a mistake in the amendment as printed. The word "a" is omitted. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I generally support the amendment. My view has not changed since Committee stage. The Government's approach is dangerously complacent. The Bill seems to have been drafted by someone wearing blinkers. There are times when the use of blinkers is appropriate. When a narrow and specific issue is being dealt with, it is right to have a tightly focused approach. However, the problem that we are dealing with relates not just to mobile phones, but to street crime and a host of other issues. I have heard nothing to alter my view that the Bill has been drafted with such a tight focus that it can only be a second best Bill. It ought to focus more widely on the general issue of theft on the streets—dealing exclusively with the subject of mobile phones, but taking its remit wider than the specific back-street operation.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We rehearsed the arguments at Second Reading and in Committee. The amendment would not take anything away, but would establish greater clarity. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I pay tribute to the diligence and persistence of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on the issue. Many of us respect his many years of parliamentary attention to issues that he believes need changing.
	Let me explain why we think that the Bill as drafted is right and appropriate. Clause 2(1) targets a person who possesses anything that can be used to change an IMEI number and intends to use it or allow it to be used for that purpose. The offence covers all equipment or software that may be used for reprogramming, even if it was not designed with that in mind. The amendment would redefine the offence so that it applied to anything that might be used in conjunction with equipment that is capable of changing an IMEI number.
	In Committee, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether a dealer selling a cable would be caught by the offence. If I understood him correctly, his concern was whether the offence was wide enough to cover equipment such as a cable when it is supplied by a dealer in the knowledge that it will be used to reprogram a mobile phone.
	I fully appreciate my noble friend's concerns, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the Bill makes it clear that anyone who supplies or offers to supply anything that may be used to reprogram a phone will commit an offence if he knows or believes that the person to whom it is supplied intends to use it or allow it to be used unlawfully. The offence is not merely retailing the cable, but doing so in the knowledge that it will be used illegally to reprogram IMEI numbers.
	The term "anything" in the Bill covers any software or equipment required for the purpose of making the change. Going back to our debate, I acknowledge with gratitude that that would include a cable, but the offence would not occur with the legitimate supply of equipment, because knowledge or belief of intent would have to be proved. In the everyday circumstance of a telecommunications retailer selling someone a cable that could be used for the purposes that we are talking about, the retailer would not be at risk of committing an offence—and therefore of prosecution—unless he knew or had good reason to believe that the item was going to be used for that purpose.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, when I raised the issue last week, I picked on the weakest case. I could have picked on others, because there are three areas of offence: subsection (3) says, "he offers to supply"; subsection (2) says, "he supplies"; and subsection (1) says:
	"he has in his custody".
	Surely the prosecuting authorities would find it easier to decide on bringing a prosecution in that case than in the case that my noble friend referred to. Perhaps that goes back to me choosing the wrong example last week.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is nothing wrong with the example. There was something wrong with my hearing when I heard "table" rather than "cable", but that is beside the point.
	My noble friend referred to the words, "has in his custody". There would be no offence open to charge or prosecution unless there was evidence of an intent towards criminality. The retailer is safe in the circumstances that we are describing.
	The definition is deliberately drawn widely by using the word, "anything". The amendment could be seen to narrow that offence. It would restrict the offence to the possession of anything that might be used in conjunction with equipment to change an IMEI number. The possession of a cable by itself would not be an offence, even if the intent to use it to change IMEI numbers could be proved. I do not believe for a second that that is what my noble friend intended.
	The term "equipment" may also not be wide enough to cover anything that may be used to help change an IMEI number. It is doubtful that software would be covered by "equipment". For those reasons, the Government prefer the current drafting of the offence, while paying proper respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the challenges that they have brought on the issue.
	I hope that the Government are not for a second dangerously complacent, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. He argued his corner well in Committee. We had subsequent discussions and we offered to bring an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to a meeting with him so that he could put to rest his legitimate concerns on whether the police were satisfied that the Bill allowed them to bring forward reasonable prosecutions. The noble Lord had the grace to say that he did not wish to avail himself of that opportunity because he did not wish to press the matter further. I mention that because I do not think that it is the action of a dangerously complacent government. We were prepared to carry on the discussion after the debate in the Chamber.
	I acknowledge with gratitude the challenge that has been made, but I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. On the basis of what he has said and the undertakings he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 53 [Reparation orders]:
	[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]

Baroness Park of Monmouth: moved Amendment No. 72A:
	Page 32, line 15, at end insert "from the membership of appropriate statutory organisations"

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73A, 74A, 75A, 75C and 77A. They all deal with the perceived need to define more precisely the power of the Secretary of State and, after him—upon devolution—of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting together.
	My concern was about the object, however well intentioned, of being, as the politically correct would say, inclusive. Those Ministers might for perfectly understandable political reasons appoint persons whose agenda would be to achieve power over, rather than to serve, the community, and who might be representing the very paramilitaries who make their own people's lives a misery.
	When the question was first debated in Committee, the noble and learned Lord quoted a number of organisations whose members might be seen by the Government as falling into the third category of designation that is provided for in the Bill, and which is now under consideration. He subsequently wrote a most helpful letter—one of many—to which he attached a list of such organisations. I found that very helpful and reassuring. However, I hope that he will nevertheless be able to accede to the amendment, which clarifies the position and gives the necessary reassurance that only persons from recognised organisations with professional expertise to offer can be considered for that powerful third discretionary slot, which recurs throughout the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in so far as it is very much in line with a helpful government amendment, to which we shall come later, about the membership of community safety committees. The Government, having reflected on what was said in Grand Committee, have recognised the inherent danger in the Bill in respect of community safety partnerships. The noble Baroness has done nothing more than extend the logic of what is now the Government's position by trying to ensure that those who will have responsibility—a very important responsibility—will be people of some substance and will be accountable. I fully support the amendment.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. The amendments that I had tabled but which I did not move were fairly negative. I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees that those amendments that have superseded it and which are in the name of my noble friend are very positive. They do not simply involve youth justice; they also relate to other parts of the Bill, including the provisions on safety partnerships.
	The Bill, which I hope will be enacted, will devolve a criminal justice system to Northern Ireland. That criminal justice system will be used to guide, force and manage the law over people living in Northern Ireland for many years to come. As I have—really rather drearily—said several times before in different ways, we are very anxious not to leave much flexibility in the Bill. It should be a technical Bill and, largely, it is such a Bill but it contains some extremely good and interesting innovations. We feel that it is inappropriate to leave in such a Bill open clauses involving the Secretary of State's powers—or the powers of whoever they are devolved to in future—which mean that the Secretary of State or those other people are free to do more or less what they want at the time.
	There are quite a few amendments in the group that is before us—Amendments Nos. 72A, 73A, 74A, 75A, 75C and 77A. They thread through this and other parts of the Bill and involve instances of the open clause, which we on this side of the House do not like. We are suspicious of it and do not feel that it would be responsible to leave it in. I hope that the noble and learned Lord feels that my noble friend's amendment is positive, reasonable and could be lived with. I support the amendment.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am inclined to think that Amendment No. 72A is somewhat over-prescriptive; the same may well apply to other amendments in this group. In Committee, I advanced the case in which a young person might not at the time of his offence be known to a probation officer or a social worker. Therefore, in order to get a sensible report, the Secretary of State might need to have recourse to some other person, whom he would designate. I have not really shifted from that position. I hope that the Government agree with me.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, briefly but sincerely, I support the noble Baroness's amendment. However, I am at variance with my noble friend Lord Hylton, who I believe is too much of an innocent in advising that the Government should take into account his reservations. With all due respect to him, I do not think that he understands the sheer villainy of paramilitary organisations on both sides of the divide or their ability further to deepen the penetration by terrorist organisations into all of our various communities throughout Northern Ireland. As the Bill is drafted, we have the right respectfully to ask the Government: what guarantee can they give that such orders as have been mentioned in this regard will not be used to, one might say, "contract out" court-imposed penalties to those who exercise community control cynically by operating on the fringes of the law?

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I very much support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The approach is over-prescriptive. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who speaks from his own experience; he suggested that we may perhaps be unduly naive in this regard. The Bill must be presented with a degree of optimism and against all the odds. There is a case for giving Northern Ireland the chance to develop a mature judicial system.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise in the context of a mild paradox as regards Amendment No. 75C. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Park for not having given her warning that I was going to make an observation. I am not absolutely confident that that amendment makes sense in the context of the Bill. I believe that it has been included in a particular list on the grounds that the amendments were all the same. Amendment 75C relates to a matter which I raised at the end of Clause 55 stand part of the Bill.
	The Minister said in response to me that it really was not a matter of great importance as it was only the rendering of a notice. I retreated abashed from the field and I acknowledge that his point is right. However, the original words in the Bill,
	"such as the Secretary of State may designate"
	were the same as those which occur in the other cases. The Minister, in responding to the other amendments of this kind in Grand Committee, had explained that,
	"such person as the Secretary of State may designate"
	would refer to people from particular statutory organisations, which is the theme of the amendments to which my noble friend Lady Park has spoken. The case that I am citing relating to the passage in Amendment No. 75C did not matter at all. The problem is that if the wording is the same between the amendments which matter and those which do not, the man on the Clapham omnibus might have the impression that they are the same and that the meaning which the Minister has given to,
	"such person as the Secretary of State may designate"
	is not carried if the same words are being used in a much more nominal place somewhere else in the Bill.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as noble Lords have indicated, we discussed this matter quite fully at Committee. I am speaking to the amendments helpfully enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, grouped in this section.
	They seek to cover the same area and therefore perhaps I should deal with one by way of example, which is Clause 53, page 32, line 15. It refers to Clause 53(4) which states,
	"Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report by—
	(a) a probation officer
	(b) a social worker of the appropriate authority; or
	(c) such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
	The noble Baroness's amendments would limit the designation to statutory organisations. That is the point of these amendments.
	We need to remember that before the court makes a reparation order, it must obtain a report on the requirements it might impose as part of that order. So a court has a duty to obtain a report but, rightly, it has the judicial discretion to decide the source of that report. I agree that in the majority of cases the report writers will be either a probation officer or a social worker.
	But to take up and echo the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, and Lord Smith, there are those who can give extremely valuable assistance who are not statutory bodies, for instance, Extern, the YMCA, and other bodies which we have spoken about. They do work and they have vast experience with marginalised and vulnerable children. What we do not want to do is to exclude the possibility of those bodies providing such assistance to the court if it considers that they have an important contribution to make.
	The noble Baroness's amendment would exclude all those extremely valuable and worthy voluntary organisations. I understand the fears which have been expressed, but these amendments do not cure that real or imagined mischief. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is quite right. If one is dealing with the needs of victims and offenders one needs a decent amount of flexibility. I remind noble Lords that not any body or person would be eligible for a mandatory report. It has to be, according to subsection 4(c),
	"such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
	So it has to be a designated organisation. Therefore, the only difference is whether some voluntary organisations are rightly to be considered as worthy of designation. I can go through all the amendments, but the approach is similar. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, we do not want to be unduly prescriptive. We want to have flexibility, stressing as I do that any such organisation in any of the relevant contexts referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, would first have to be designated by the Secretary of State.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I seek a little clarification. I see the point about Amendment 75C for which I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for identification. That is in a different category and I entirely accept that my amendment is not appropriate in that case.
	However, do I understand that the Minister is unable to accept all the other amendments that I propose or not? I am not perfectly clear.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is my position. I am quite happy to go through them all, but my point is a common one although it has to be varied according to the amendments; namely, that one requires the flexibility referred to. It is a mistake to exclude from the possibility of assistance voluntary organisations because the noble Baroness limits everything to statutory organisations and does not allow the Secretary of State even to consider the most worthy, experienced and well regarded of voluntary organisations.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 151.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 73 and 73A not moved.]
	Clause 54 [Community responsibility orders]:
	[Amendments Nos. 74 and 74A not moved.]
	Clause 55 [Custody care orders]:
	[Amendments Nos. 75 to 75C not moved.]
	Clause 56 [Youth conferences and youth conference plans]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 43, line 42, at end insert "; or
	( ) the probation board of Northern Ireland"

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 returns to my questions and suggestions on the inclusion of the Probation Board of Northern Ireland in this issue. In Grand Committee the Minister explained that existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for youth conference co-ordinators will be welcome to apply for such posts. I refer noble Lords to col. CWH 146 of Hansard of 18th June 2002. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and I understand why the probation board does not appear on the face of the Bill.
	However, I am concerned that such people may not be aware that they are able to apply for posts as youth conference co-ordinators. The board was anxious for us to raise the issue. It believes that existing probation officers are some of the best people to carry out the role of conference co-ordinators. The Minister suggested that our proceedings are scrutinised carefully in Northern Ireland. I agree with him. Perhaps the issue could be explained again on the Floor of the House and we could flag it up to ensure that people in the Northern Ireland probation service understand that they are qualified to play that role and know how to set about it. If the Government could give me some indication that through the administration a letter or pamphlet would go to members of the board informing them that they would be welcome and qualified to play that role, I would be happy. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has been modest in his requirement. He knows that if one were to ask the proverbial man in the street which body would be best qualified to deal with this delicate matter, the name that would automatically come to his tongue would be the Northern Ireland Probation Board. It is respected throughout the entire community. It is seen and held to be impartial and I cannot think of any body better qualified to deal with the matter.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord put his amendment. I hope that I can say unambiguously words that will assist his purpose. As noble Lords will know, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on 25th June and copied the letter to all noble Lords who had shown an interest in our earlier proceedings, but I am happy to make the matter plain on the record again.
	Existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for youth conference co-ordinators will be most welcome to apply for posts. If successful, they will then—as the Bill indicates—become civil servants within the youth conferencing agency. Recruitment will be by means of public advertisement. Everyone who is qualified—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that that may include a large number of probation officers, some of whom may not wish to apply and some of whom will—may apply. To assist further the House, and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I will undertake that the Northern Ireland Office will write formally to the head of the probation service in Northern Ireland indicating what I have just said. I hope that that is of assistance.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his patience and for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 77 and 77A not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 78:
	Page 45, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) No youth conference may be convened until the rules specified in subsection (1) have come into effect."

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I hope to clarify through the amendment a careful explanation from the Minister, who in Grand Committee said that Amendment No. 78 would ensure that youth conference co-ordinators are equipped with guidelines and rules of procedure before convening.
	The Minister explained that conference co-ordinators will have such guidelines and that they will be published in due course. All the conferences will be unfamiliar. I therefore think it would be wise to place that information in the Bill with the added provision that youth conferences may not be convened prior to the circulation of guidelines.
	The Bill specifies that the Secretary of State will provide a code of practice or guidelines as to how the conferences will work. Clause 86 allows the date of devolution to be flexible for different parts of the Bill. We support that. I should like to feel that this part of the Bill will not be devolved until the Secretary of State and his staff have had time to put together the guidelines so that conferences are not called and co-ordinators asked to do a job before the Government's guidelines for their management have been laid down. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to offer the clarification to which the noble Lord alluded. As he rightly said, in new Article 3B(1), the Secretary of State may make rules governing the procedure of youth conferences. I confirm that it is the clear intention that such rules will be made. Without such rules, the proposed system will not be able to operate.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that confirmation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 46, line 12, at end insert—
	"(8) The Secretary of State may make procedural rules about youth conference plans which may (in particular) include provision about the period within which functions of persons required to monitor compliance with youth conference plans must be performed.
	(9) Rules under paragraph (8) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and, accordingly, section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies to such rules."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80. New Article 3B(1) provides that the Secretary of State may make rules—to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred in the previous amendment—governing the procedure of youth conferences. It is expected that the rules will be used to set time limits for the various stages of the process and for the performance of the functions of the co-ordinator.
	They cannot be used to make provision about youth conference plans, in particular to set a time limit within which the person monitoring compliance with a plan arising from a diversionary conference must submit the final report to the director.
	Since the director may, having received a report on compliance or non-compliance, still instigate proceedings against a child if he is of the view that the plan has not been complied with to a significant extent, it must be right to set a time limit for that stage of the process. Without it, the child might wrongly and unfairly have the threat of prosecution hanging over him for an indefinite period.
	Amendment No. 79 therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make rules establishing a time limit for the submission of the report to the director. Since we intend to specify a time limit, it is not appropriate for the Bill to have the words relating to the making of the report,
	"as soon as reasonably practicable",
	which Amendment No. 80 deletes. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that is a tightening up and improvement of the protection for a possible child defendant. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 57 [Diversionary youth conferences]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 49, line 35, leave out ", as soon as reasonably practicable,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Court-ordered youth conferences]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 52, line 5, leave out from beginning to "unless" in line 7 and insert "A court must not make a reference under Article 33A"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, new Article 33C(1) provides that a child may be referred to a conference only if he lives in an area where the new system is in place, so that we can pilot the new arrangements and, if necessary, stagger the subsequent roll out of the conferencing system. The amendment is simply to clarify that that applies equally to mandatory referrals to a conference—provided for at new Article 33A(1)—and to discretionary referrals, provided for at 33A(3) and (4). It is a tidying-up clarification. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 65 [Display of Royal Arms at courts]:

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 58, line 8, leave out "not"

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85.
	The question of display or lack of display of royal arms at courts is the first of—and indeed, exemplifies—the measures in the Bill we believe to be wrong. I imagined that the clause heading would give an indication of the purpose of that clause. However, these headings are more than misleading. The heading of Clause 65 is,
	"Display of Royal Arms at courts";
	yet its purpose is not to encourage but indeed to discourage the use of royal arms at courts by largely prohibiting them. The amendments standing in my name and that of my colleagues are designed to change the purpose of this clause to one more in keeping with its heading, and in a sense to uphold the continued use or display of the coat of arms in the courts in Northern Ireland.
	The purpose of the royal coat of arms is to represent the state—or, more accurately, the Crown. Courts throughout the kingdom display the coat of arms both inside the court and on exterior buildings. Therefore why should one part of the kingdom be treated differently from the remainder?
	This is a matter, as with the issue of flags, of treating Northern Ireland in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. As some noble Lords may be aware, the flags regulations were tested for their compatibility with the Belfast agreement. As my noble friend Lord Magginis of Drumglass mentioned in Grand Committee, a High Court decision was delivered by Mr Justice Kerr on 4th October 2001. It had been claimed that regulations pertaining to flags were incompatible with the Belfast agreement. But Mr Justice Kerr upheld that the regulations were indeed compatible with the agreement. He said:
	"That approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for partnership, equality and mutual respect and to fulfil the Government's undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions".
	Therefore the correct balance and acting with rigorous impartiality was not to be compromised with treating Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the kingdom on an issue that acknowledged, and therefore reflected, Northern Ireland's constitutional position.
	My next point has been mentioned in this House before but I shall repeat it. The Belfast agreement, and more importantly those of us who endorsed the agreement,
	"acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division".
	I emphasise,
	"symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division".
	The agreement does not prohibit the use of symbols. I suggest that the approach taken by this Government goes against the spirit of that agreement, which accepted that symbols, and symbols of state, would remain in post-agreement Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, in Grand Committee I spoke at some length on the contradictions that exist in relation to this clause. I am afraid that that seems to have been misunderstood. If it was not understood, then it was totally ignored, for nothing has been done in the interim to resolve those contradictions.
	Perhaps I may, as briefly as I can—I do not want to detain the House to an undue extent by repeating what I said in Grand Committee but it is important—remind the House of my arguments. Clause 65(1) suggests that,
	"The Royal Arms must not be displayed in any courtroom".
	But Clause 65(2) then goes on to list a number of courtrooms to which that rule does not apply. They include the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast, the courthouses in Armagh, Banbridge, Magherafelt, Omagh, and Court No. 1 in the courthouse in Downpatrick. Why do we have that contradiction? Simply because the IRA have not managed to blow up those courtrooms. The courts are still there; the coats of arms are still on the walls and it has been decided that it would not be the wisest thing in the world to deface those courtrooms by hauling down the coats of arms that exist there.
	That leads me to ask the question: if the Government are intent on being so political; if the Government believe that those who object to the coats of arms are right to the extent that they can be offended by their presence; and if in recognising that they repudiate to some extent the very source through which justice is administered—that power that devolves from the sovereign, from the Crown—then it is a sad day not just for Northern Ireland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, if the Government accept that people will be offended, are they telling me that they should not be offended in any new courtrooms, but it is all right for them to continue to be offended in existing courtrooms where the royal coat of arms is displayed? That is the ridiculous depths to which this argument descends.
	The problem is that the contradiction does not confine itself to the courtrooms; it extends to courthouses as a whole. In Clause 65(3) we are told that:
	"The Royal Coat of Arms must not be displayed . . . on the exterior of an existing court-house . . . unless they were displayed there immediately before the coming into force of this section".
	There is a huge vacuum in terms of information relating to new courthouses. I raised this matter in Grand Committee and it was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who indicated that the Bill, as she put it,
	"is silent in the placing of royal arms on the exterior of new courthouses".—[Official Report, 19/06/02; col. CWH 174.]
	So every time a courthouse is repaired or rebuilt, or newly built, there will be a political argument which impacts on the whole judicial and legal process in Northern Ireland; an ongoing source of conflict in an area where for 30 awful years there was no conflict.
	I cannot believe that the Government intend to continue to behave in such a naive and illogical manner in relation to Clause 65. Either it is right to acknowledge where the source of justice exists, and what is acknowledged in one courtroom should be acknowledged in another, or it is right—"and" it is right, perhaps—to acknowledge the symbol so far as concerns the exterior of the courthouses.
	I raised the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, about the new courthouse in Dungannon. I posed the question that since the old courthouse had a coat of arms on its exterior what would happen to the new courthouse? She whetted my appetite by suggesting that there might be a precedent. But nothing has come forward between Grand Committee and this Report stage which indicates that a source of resentment, of conflict, and of ongoing turmoil will be addressed in a sensible and dignified manner by your Lordships' House. That is wrong. I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I support these four amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that the title of Clause 65 is misleading. It is entitled, "Display of Royal Arms at courts". But that is not what the clause is about; it is about the lack of display of coats of arms at courts. There is a bit of government spin here. But the people of Northern Ireland see through that.
	My colleagues and I raised the issue in Grand Committee. I am disappointed that on this issue we do not have a listening government. This is an important matter back home in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister is there today in order to attend a serious conference on the future—or lack of it—of the Belfast agreement. The Government could make a political decision, a political gesture, and they could listen to the voices from Northern Ireland. But there has been no positive response.
	The clause states that the royal coat of arms will be displayed on the exterior of some courthouses and not outside others. That is totally contrary to the recommendation of the review committee on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It recommended that the coat of arms should be displayed externally on all courthouses in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government must explain why they have gone against the review body's recommendation and why they have decided that these coats of arms should be on the external parts of some courthouses and not on others.
	Such confusion sends a message to the IRA. We know how they think. "We will now blow up the courthouses that still have the coats of arms outside" is the message being sent. The Government are in a state of confusion because they have rejected the recommendation of the review committee. I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter.
	The situation in relation to the courtrooms is even more confusing. In some courthouses the coat of arms will be in the courtrooms; in others it will not; and in a third type of courthouse it will be in one courtroom but not in the courtroom next door or down the corridor. That is totally confusing. The Government should pay attention to a recommendation made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a body not noted for its favourable comments on royal coats of arms and Union flags. It stated:
	"If Parliament determines that the display of the Royal Arms . . . is indeed consistent with equality, impartiality and independence, then it ought to consider adopting an approach that is consistent across the region. It ought not to allow the perception, however unfounded, that some court-houses or courtrooms are more British or more monarchist than others administering the same laws".
	There is consistency from the human rights commission. I appeal to the Government—please listen to the voices from Northern Ireland.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendments Nos. 82 to 85. In one respect I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Kilclooney and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about the need for consistency in the way we approach these matters. Although tonight I shall be supporting the Government on the issue, I believe that the clause sends out contradictory messages. In some courthouses we shall have one set of symbols and in others we shall have a different set, even to the point where the Belfast courthouse, which is due to be completed this summer, will have the coat of arms, whereas others will not.
	That will cause problems for the future in showing what we mean by the administration of justice. It starts to look as though we have one system of justice in one part of the Province and a different system of justice in the other. We either go for an "all" or for a "nothing" solution. Personally, I would go for the "nothing" solution. That is where I disagree with the noble Lords. I believe that signs and symbols have bedevilled the past 70 years of Northern Ireland's history. The more one can remove signs and symbols that can be an affront to any member of the community perhaps the better.
	However, if the "nothing" solution is not to be adopted then the "all" solution surely would be that it is legitimate to show both our coat of arms and the insignia of the Irish Parliament. That may be provocative. Noble Lords ask the question: what is the source of justice—that surely is the key issue—for the defeat of terrorism and for the defeat of those who would destroy our institutions? Surely the source is, "Yes, the monarchy in the United Kingdom, but our Parliament which sits under Her Majesty the Queen, and in Ireland, the Dail, the elected Parliament of that democracy". Is it so unreasonable to think that if we are to have symbols and signs that we should show precisely where the power of our judiciary comes from? It is from an elected parliamentary process in both countries. If we are to have symbols I believe that that would be a better way to go about it.
	I remind your Lordships of the review and what it had to say. Four matters struck me. The first was that we should seek to,
	"create an environment in which all those attending court can feel comfortable".
	The review pointed out that all parties to the agreement acknowledged the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purpose and the need to ensure that they were used in a manner that promoted mutual respect. That is the key for me—the idea of mutual respect from both sides of the divide. The review might also be recalled for the guarantee it gives of just and equal treatment and parity of esteem for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.
	I know that the noble Lords who have just contributed to the debate would agree that the key, surely, for long-term stability and peace in Northern Ireland is to draw the minority community into our processes. If we fail to do that, the agreement will never work. Until that becomes a reality, and there is a real belief in civil society, its institutions, the upholding of the law, and government by democracy, then we cannot succeed in our objectives, however many agreements we sign or however much legislation we pass. I believe that sometimes we pass too much legislation and do not give it a chance to bed down and allow relationships to prosper. However much we act in these areas, whatever is produced will not be worth the paper it is written on unless we draw into the processes the minority community in Northern Ireland.
	Secondly, the review draws down on the issue of identity. I remind your Lordships of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities which said that the agreement does not merely protect identity, or should not protect identity, which is, I think, construed quite narrowly by the framework convention, but also aspirations which, in the context of Northern Ireland, plainly refers to national aspirations. That is why the agreement says that the people should be able to identify themselves "and be accepted as" British or Irish or both. So the review's neutral approach to this question should be observed as regards all national symbols. We must get this right. Incidentally, I am also dubious about the rationale for flying flags on designated days because they are days on which flags are flown on government buildings. The courts are a separate organ of government from the executive and the rules for the one should not necessarily apply to the other.
	Thirdly—to cite the review again—
	"in time it may be more fitting to move towards symbols that emphasise the separation of the courts from the Executive".
	I hope that the Minister will explain how it is envisaged that that recommendation will be implemented.
	Finally, the review recommended that the interior of courtrooms be free of any symbol. But the Bill outlaws only the royal coat of arms. Other symbols are not affected. What is the Government's thinking here? How will they deal with that contradiction, which my noble friend rightly pointed out?

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have been watching and listening to the news bulletins emanating from Northern Ireland today. It is obvious that a great crisis is emerging in relation to the Good Friday agreement. Brave politicians have given their opinion and political commentators all consider a dangerous period now to exist in relation to the Northern Ireland agreement—the Belfast agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that he would like symbols to be created that would include the minority community in Northern Ireland. But what is happening now? In the course of trying to bring in the minority community, the majority community is being totally excluded. It is that majority which at present is in absolute crisis. The legislation passing through this House in so many aspects appears to be driving the Northern Ireland process in the direction of joint authority. Joint authority will never be the answer to Northern Ireland's problems.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that there could be two sets of insignia: one royal and one depicting the involvement of the Irish Government. If that were to happen, it would cause an awful uproar in Northern Ireland. That would be seen as joint authority. Joint authority would not be acceptable even to the IRA. It does not want joint authority either; it wants to have its input into the political processes in Northern Ireland.
	I rise only to support what has been said from Northern Ireland. Here, we are a million light years away from what is happening at Hillsborough this afternoon. We are entering the month of July. There is a real danger. I am not sure how many people will read or hear reports of this debate. Anyone who does so will be further alienated from the so-called peace process of Northern Ireland.
	On the question of which courts are designated, it appears from careful reading of the provision that the Government are in danger of having particular insignia in Catholic areas and different insignia in Protestant areas. That is not the way to bring about cohesion and support for the agreement. It will only further alienate the communities in Northern Ireland. That is the last thing we want at this time.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will tell the House what nation in the civilised world does not display either in or on its courts its national symbol.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. My support for the amendments springs from my objection to the greater part of the Bill. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, another one-way street of legislation. It is in danger of alienating the majority community. On Monday, I said:
	"The more the Government talk about the peace process, the normalisation of affairs in Northern Ireland and the end of emergency, the more frequently we find them legislating to make permanent a different standard of justice in the two parts of the kingdom".—[Official Report, 1/7/02; col. 90.]
	Here we are again. The symbols of justice will be different in the two parts of the kingdom. That does not bring communities together; it drives communities apart. We shall even have the ultimate absurdity of having two standards in Northern Ireland itself. That cannot make sense.
	My feelings about these matters are unchanged. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked the Government to listen to the voices of the people of Northern Ireland. I think that that was also the message of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The trouble is that all too often the Government do not listen to people's voices. They listen to the gunfire, react even to the clicking of a safety catch and run to offer more concessions to those with the guns and to alienate further those who would walk the path of peace.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Alton on a wide variety of subjects, but I am bound to say that I find his suggestion bizarre in the extreme. One might as well recommend that courtrooms south of the border should be obliged to display royal symbols as well as republican ones.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, is it not surprising that the British Government are proposing to remove the royal coat of arms from the external walls of Northern Ireland court houses when, 80 years after independence in the Republic it remains on the external walls of courthouses south of the border?

Lord Monson: My Lords, that is an interesting piece of news. I did not know that. However, I do not think that there is any suggestion that new coats of arms be erected when new courthouses are built. In any case, it is impossible to imagine that the French would ever allow the symbols of the French state to be removed from the exterior or interior of courthouses in Corsica, whatever the pressure from a terrorist minority on that island.
	Once again, as on the matter of the judicial oath, the Government appear to be capitulating to a hardline minority—to be precise, not simply a minority but a minority of a minority, amounting to no more than 12 to 13 per cent of the population of the Province.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, ever since the Belfast agreement—indeed, since the run-up to it—there have had to be compromises in Northern Ireland. Every Secretary of State has said so and has said that each community must make concessions, that no one can have everything that they want, but that by achieving a compromise—compromises are necessary—we can move forward on the basis of some sort of consent. That has been the basis of the agreement.
	As I have said previously, I regret that the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the main voice of nationalism in Northern Ireland, is not heard in this House. Our debates are the poorer for the lack of that voice. I cannot possibly speak for one side or the other in Northern Ireland; I make no claim to do so. But no one else in this House can do so either. There is therefore a weakness in that we do not reflect the many views in Northern Ireland.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord has previously made this point about the lack of representatives of the SDLP and a legitimate view in Northern Ireland. Last time, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, put him right. He told him: they have been offered the chance; they refused it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, I remind your Lordships that we are on Report and that we have different rules and conventions on Report from those in Committee.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I make that point simply because I am trying to get a sense of the views expressed in the House and to balance them against other views held by many people—not the majority—in Northern Ireland. It is on that basis that we must decide whether the Government have got it right in the Bill and therefore whether the amendments are appropriate. I contend that the Government have had to compromise. It is not possible to move forward in any way other than by compromise. I fully understand the strength of view on the unionist side; I understand the views on the nationalist side.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind the House that noble Lords may speak only once on each amendment on Report. No one may speak after the Minister has spoken.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two. I contend that the Government have sought to achieve a compromise on the difficult issue of the royal coat of arms. They have achieved a worthwhile compromise, which, with good will, could be accepted by all people in Northern Ireland.
	It is not a matter of making concessions to one side or the other; it is a matter of saying, "Let's have a compromise because that is the best way forward". In the end, the most important issue relating to the courts in Northern Ireland is the quality of the justice that they dispense.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, we have been over this ground a good many times. Nevertheless, I want to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. In Committee, I mentioned the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly had chosen the flax flower as its shared symbol. I commended that as a highly sensible and construction decision on what we all acknowledge to be a deeply divided society.
	I have been listening to the debate, and it has just occurred to me that, here in London, on the outside of the Old Bailey, there is a large figure of Justice holding the scales evenly balanced. Could that be a suitable symbol for the exterior—or even the interior—of courts in Northern Ireland?

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the matter is simple. It is a fundamental part of the agreement that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and will remain as such, so long as the majority desires that. It is fundamental that, in part of the United Kingdom, the courts of justice are the courts under the Crown, and it is only proper to show that that is so. It should show people that the courts have nothing to do with politics and administer justice under the Crown. So far as I am aware, no one has ever objected to having the crown on a courthouse as such.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord has, essentially, said what I was going to say. However, it bears saying again.
	We are frequently reminded of the sanctity of the Belfast agreement and the importance of the peace process. That agreement states clearly that, while,
	"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union",
	that shall be the position. Why are we trying to anticipate what may—or may not—happen after May 2003 or later? We are treating an important matter as a political football and ignoring the words used by the Government themselves when they remind us—as they do frequently—how sacred the Belfast agreement is.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has said, one could say that it is precisely because the agreement acknowledges that, for the time being and until there is a vote the other way, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, that there must be concessions, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested. That is why there must be a compromise. That is why the two communities must adjust and acknowledge the outcome of the Belfast agreement, which is that there must be some form of compromise. That is implicit in the overall principle that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until the citizens of Northern Ireland decide otherwise.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we have had a long debate on the subject, and it might be appropriate if, with the agreement of your Lordships, I were to speak to Amendment No. 86, which would leave out Clause 65, even though it is not in this group of amendments.
	Many views have been expressed in the House. I have listened many times to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and have done so with admiration for the sincerity of what he said. I still admire his sincerity, but, today, I feel that he is, perhaps, not quite in the real world on these matters.
	My reason for tabling an amendment to leave out the whole clause goes back to the theme of the arguments that I have made throughout the passage of the Bill. First, as has been said, Northern Ireland is wholly and integrally a part of the United Kingdom. There is no question about its sovereignty or about where that sovereignty lies. Secondly, the Good Friday agreement is, as the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Dubs, said, a compromise agreement. It is full of compromises. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Monday night, we should congratulate the Government on setting it up and getting it to where they got it. However, this Bill is about the judicial system of a part of the United Kingdom. Political compromise should be no part of a judicial system, for goodness' sake.
	The judges do not take their authority from Mr Trimble or Mr Adams or whoever the First Minister or Deputy First Minister is. Where do they take it from? They take it from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. If the judges take their authority from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, everybody who lives in Northern Ireland—of whatever persuasion—is bound by the law of Northern Ireland. That law is operated under the authority of our Sovereign. If that is the situation—leaving aside the objections of those who refuse to accept the authority of the legal system in Northern Ireland, of whom there are a few—what is wrong with having Her Majesty's coat of arms displayed where it has always been and where it is to be found in every courthouse in the rest of the United Kingdom?
	I have also criticised the Government for raising hares that should not have been raised. They have raised the temperature unnecessarily on some matters. In the agreement, it was accepted by all parties that there were flags, symbols and emblems that were sensitive matters for all parties to the agreement and that, where possible, they should not be removed or banned. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, spoke just now about the fact that the coat of arms can be found on courthouses in the Republic. I asked Jonathan Caine, who works for us in Central Office, to find out for me how often the royal title is used in the Republic of Ireland. He found, I think, two pages of "Royal This", "Royal That" and "Royal The Other" in the Yellow Pages. What is more, if noble Lords go to Leinster House, they will see the shamrock well painted on the gates: they will also still see the crown. If the Government of the Republic of Ireland are content to operate in and around the crowns, thistles and other symbols of the United Kingdom and of the Ireland of the old days, why must we be so destructive in this way? It is not necessary to raise these hares.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as it is, apparently, in order to speak to Amendment No. 86, I shall make the contribution that I was waiting to make to that debate.
	I hope that I do not need to be told that it is necessary to look for compromises. My mind goes back to the agreement of 1993, the framework documents and other instruments over which we laboured for months and—it sometimes seemed—for years, seeking the kind of compromise that would help matters forward. So, I trust that I do not need to be reminded of the need for give and take. But it does not follow from the need to give and take that this part of the legislature has to accept in total the compromise that has been put forward either by the review body or, as is the case here in a rather rare instance, where the Government have departed from the strict letter of that compromise.
	The review body was infinitely earnest, hard-working and admirable, but it has come to a view and, in turn, we are entitled to come to a view. The difference between us and the membership of the review body is that we are vested with a legislative right and a legislative duty. It is for us to make up our own minds. While there is much in the review that is quite admirable, here I believe the membership has gone wrong.
	I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply whether the Government are acting in pursuit of a principle here. I do not know what that principle could be, but if there is one then I should be glad to learn it. I think that the answer is more likely to be that the proposal is based on expedience. There is nothing wrong with expedience, so long as it turns out to be expedient.
	What appears to have been balanced here by the review body is the virtual certainty that the provision in the Bill seeking to deny the royal coat of arms to be displayed in certain courts is going to cause deep affront to those who support the Union and its continuance. It will do so because, as has been made clear during our previous discussions, it will seem to confirm the notion that there is something incompatible with neutrality and impartiality in the court system if the royal arms are displayed.
	We know what will cause affront, so let us look at what will be the benefit. It will be the avoidance of what the review body states at paragraph 8.61 as follows,
	"we are conscious that the presence of the Royal Coat of Arms in a prominent position in the courtroom could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".
	The review body is perfectly entitled to take that view, although it is difficult to understand how anyone appearing in court could be put off by seeing the royal coat of arms, or that the body seriously thinks that the royal coat of arms might detract from the neutrality of the court environment. I say that because, as has already been pointed out, judges owe their duty not to the government of the day but to the Sovereign. In that regard, the presence of the royal coat of arms serves as a reminder of that impartiality rather than a kind of allusion to partiality or detraction from neutrality.
	We have to ask the question: must we accept the package and every item in it simply because it is a package? I advance the view earnestly that we would be failing in our duty as legislators if we delegated to the review body, distinguished as it is, that duty. We have to think about each and every component of the package, as well as considering the influence of each item on the package as a whole.
	Along with other noble Lords and, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord on the Government Front Bench, I have listened with great care to the debate. Certain aspects of the proposals in this Bill, if they were not so serious, could be described as ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has alluded to them. Other aspects are not ludicrous; they are very grave indeed. I shall not go over them because that would detain the House unjustifiably. However, when he looks at the end of his brief and sees the word "Resist" printed there, I urge the Minster to add, in his mind's eye, a further amendment which does not appear on the Marshalled List. It would read as follows: "Delete 'Resist' and insert 'Think again'".

Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I tabled amendments in Grand Committee which proposed the exact opposite of what has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. For various reasons I did not move them. However, I should like to echo the remark of my noble friend Lord Dubs: there is another view. That other view has to be presented. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, we should not pretend—at least not in Northern Ireland and in the context of the Belfast agreement—that certain symbols are neutral. We all know that there are very few neutral symbols in Northern Ireland.
	I should like to respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about the Republic of Ireland. If the Republic can display symbols that go against its principles but not be bothered by them, that is because justice is conducted according to the law of the land. What do symbols matter when that is the case? Symbols are not important and the fewer of them we have on either side, the better it shall be.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in many ways this has been a somewhat sad and troubled debate. I should like first to respond to some of the comments made in rather trenchant terms by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I think it was he who said that this legislation is a "one-way street"; that it listens to gunfire and the clicking of the safety catch; and that it alienates those who walk the path of peace. I wish to say to noble Lords that the reverse is true. I have said this before, but I shall repeat it. It took the courage of the good people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, to lend their voice to peace. It is their courage that we celebrate and it is their courage that we now seek to reinforce.
	The judicial system in Northern Ireland has operated well and Her Majesty's Government will jealously protect it, both now and in the future. I have also said this before, but I shall repeat it. Only when the institutions of Northern Ireland are ready will the system enable devolution of justice and its administration to be transferred. Symbols are just that: symbols. If we consider the reality of the Northern Irish courts, they have dispensed justice with integrity for a great many years. Nothing is about to change.
	I am aware that this is a vitally important issue. It was closely debated in another place and then debated in detail by noble Lords in Grand Committee. Those debates were exhaustive, but some would say that they were not exhaustive enough because many of the arguments have been rehearsed again this afternoon.
	The noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned that two sets of amendments were tabled in Grand Committee. Those two groups of amendments sought to achieve the opposite effect. If no other proof were needed, that alone demonstrates the difficulty of striking the right balance in this area. Again, as I have remarked before, balance is the key to this clause. We seek to strike a balance between the sensitivities of the various communities in Northern Ireland and the constitutional position of the courts. We seek to strike a balance between the exterior and the interior of courtrooms, as well as balance regarding a neutral environment and courthouses of historical and architectural merit.
	Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 require the royal coat of arms to be displayed in all courtrooms. Amendment No. 85 requires the royal coat of arms to be displayed outside all courthouses and removes the prohibition on their display on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are not already displayed. These amendments fly in the face of the balance which has been struck and I urge the House to resist any challenges.
	We have to recognise that the reality in Northern Ireland is that at present there is a variation from court to court as to the symbols displayed. Contrary to what was asserted by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, it does not appear that this is dependent upon whether it is a Catholic area or a Protestant area. They vary. The noble Lord is shaking his head. If it was not he, I apologise to him. It may have been another noble Lord who made that point. In fact, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
	So we already have to deal with a variation. Perhaps I may give an example. There are coats of arms in Newry, but not in Ballymena. So we already have a degree of inconsistency with which Northern Ireland has lived in a relatively contented way.
	We should remind ourselves of what was said in the review. I know that the noble and learned Lord made reference to paragraph 8.61, but that paragraph should be read in its entirety because it first refers to the Belfast agreement. It also has to be read in conjunction with what the review said about the way it would deal with the past.
	Noble Lords will know that the review met for the first time on 1st July 1998; it had 45 days of plenary meetings; it issued more than 5,000 copies of its consultation paper; it held more than 70 meetings with interested groups and organisations; it received 90 written submissions; and it spoke to many, many ordinary men and women on the ground to seek their views—not only legislators' views, not only interested parties' views, but the views of the ordinary men and women of Northern Ireland—of what they thought should happen. A series of nine seminars were held across Northern Ireland in May and June 1999, to which more than 3,000 individuals, groups and organisations were invited and more than 300 attended.
	What did the review say after all this? It talked about the past and about the future. I draw your Lordships' attention to what is said at paragraph 1.19 on page 6 and 1.20 on page 7. At paragraph 1.19 the review states:
	"we heard some suggestions that, if the system was working, change should not be introduced for the sake of it . . . There was, of course, a range of opinions between these positions and there was much discussion about the workings of particular parts of the criminal justice system".
	At paragraph 1.20 it continues:
	"But we did listen carefully to genuinely and strongly held views, from differing perspectives, about past events. It was important for us to understand these points of view if we were to develop recommendations for arrangements most likely to inspire the confidence of all parts of the community in the future. We do not express any opinion about the validity of the views about past events and wish to stress that where we suggest change, this should not in itself be taken as implying criticism of what has gone before".
	So the changes in the review were recommended to create the prospect of a happier future for all the people of Northern Ireland, from both sides of the community.
	I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we are not delegating the duty to this body, but we believe that its work deserves our attention and that we should listen. We are listening.
	The review clearly states that it makes these recommendations because the presence of the royal coat of arms,
	"could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".
	The Government also acknowledge that there are those who may feel that way. We seek therefore to minimise those sensitivities, consistent as far as possible with the sensitivities of others. It is a fine balance.
	Many noble Lords have in other debates rightly and eloquently supported the outstanding contribution of the Northern Ireland judiciary to the justice system. We cannot allow this one narrow issue to cloud that system, which has so much to commend it. That is why the review made that recommendation and that is why the Government have accepted it.
	This is the history and the background to the clause. As I have said from the outset, I am aware of the sensitivities surrounding this matter, but the review is persuasive. This clause should be seen in the context of the Belfast agreement's adherence to the principle of mutual respect which forms the basis of the new Northern Ireland.
	By way of conclusion, I say again that the review struck a balance, and this clause reflects that balance. As recommended by the review, it prohibits the display of royal arms within courtrooms, though with the exception of those courthouses which are architecturally or historically important. Royal arms will continue to be displayed on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are already displayed.
	I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Government have striven, honestly and with integrity, to chart a path with which both parts of the community in Northern Ireland will be content, but also making clear that justice will never be subservient to mere symbols.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am far from content but there will be an opportunity to test the opinion of the House on this wide-ranging debate on Amendment No. 86. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Leave out Clause 65.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am not persuaded. I have a slightly different argument. I believe that we should maintain the status quo. It was quite unnecessary to raise this hare and the Bill would be considerably better without this clause. This would leave some courthouses in certain parts of the Province with coats of arms and other courthouses in other parts without them. As the noble Baroness said, they do not necessarily reflect the persuasions of the communities, so why do we have to interfere? The Bill will be considerably better without this clause. I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 145.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 67 [Information about discharge and temporary release of prisoners]:

Baroness Park of Monmouth: moved Amendment No. 86A:
	Page 59, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) A victim information scheme must also apply in respect of persons in the category of OTRs ("on the runs") who, after due process, may be released into the community."

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hope to persuade the Government to make specific provision for the right of members of the community who have lost friends or family because of the terrorist activities of those persons known as "on the runs" to be informed in advance of those persons' impending return to the community.
	The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed with Sinn Fein at the Weston Park talks in July to do something to enable such fugitives, who have never been brought to justice, to return to their communities. The Prime Minister has recently given assurances that there was no offer of amnesty nor was one asked for. The Prime Minister nevertheless considers himself committed to finding a solution.
	The OTRs include those who have planted the Enniskillen bomb. Their identities and the crimes for which they were responsible are already well known to the community, and the fact that they have fled and never dared to return suggests at least a recognition of guilt.
	Since the intention to allow them to return became known, there has been widespread grief and rage in both the Unionist and the republican communities. That grief and rage are all the greater since there are no plans for the return of the many families exiled to the mainland under threat of death if they return. They are exiles solely because they displeased the violent and armed paramilitaries who still rule the streets in Belfast, four years after the Belfast agreement. These victims dare not testify against their oppressors and the police cannot act. So the innocent must remain exiles, while the OTRs, each with a record of crime, violence and murder, are to return and be welcomed home by their paramilitary community.
	That is why I have tabled this amendment. I believe that the victims of the OTRs are entitled to be consulted and warned. The Government may well say that of course the scheme will cover them. Without explicit provision on the face of the Bill of the kind that I have proposed, it will not.
	First, the present scheme refers to released prisoners. We still do not know whether the OTRs are to serve any prison term. Secondly, the existing early release information scheme states that the scheme does not apply to,
	"a person convicted who may not have served a prison sentence",
	or,
	"a prisoner who has not received a sentence of five years or more".
	Finally, the scheme lays down that,
	"for the protection of some of the individuals involved, specific information may not be provided".
	We do not know what formula will be invoked to fulfil the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that they would,
	"take such steps as are necessary in their jurisdiction to resolve the difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued"—
	although I welcome the Prime Minister's intention, as I understand it, to bring those proposals to Parliament.
	The Government have argued that,
	"Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit by early release",
	and,
	"it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued".
	On all those counts, it seems certain that under the provisions of the present early release scheme which I have cited, and perhaps particularly under the provision for,
	"the protection of the individuals involved",
	the victims of the crimes of the OTRs would not be entitled at present to have advance warning of their triumphant reappearance on the streets where their victims live.
	I believe that we owe it to the victims of the OTRs to ensure on the face of the Bill that their rights are expressly preserved. I have considerable faith that the noble and learned Lord will recognise the justice and the timeliness of this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The noble and learned Lord may tell us that it is not necessary and that the point is covered. But we do not believe that it is adequately covered in the Bill as it stands. I know of the noble and learned Lord's concern for victims and I have personal knowledge of similar happenings, with violent people being released from prison without their release being made known to their victims. In Grand Committee we heard the story about the happening in Wales.
	This would not be a difficult provision to include in the Bill. It is not political in any way. It would merely provide a good safeguard to ensure that the "awful happening" did not in fact happen—by that, I mean, for example, the mother, father, husband or wife of a victim of the Omagh bombing running into the person who is known to have committed that atrocity in the street without having been warned that it might happen. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendment and with the sentiments behind it. As I have said previously, we on these Benches would not support a fudge. We believe that true democratic parliamentarians should abide by two cardinal rules: first, that elections are free and fair; and, secondly, that the rule of law is upheld. So we should not be party to any sort of fudge or amnesty declared before due process.
	That said, I understand that such terms as "OTRs" are not appropriate in the Bill and that the amendment would need to be better drafted. I understand also that the amendment as drafted is slightly contradictory and is not quite what the noble Baroness intends.
	We shall listen to what the Minister has to say. But unless there is satisfaction here, we should support such a proposal at Third Reading if the noble Baroness were to redraft her amendment and if we were not satisfied with the Government's response.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful in dealing with the noble Baroness's amendment and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to return to the Bill itself, and to page 59. This part of the Bill deals with information about discharge and the temporary release of prisoners. So one has the two possibly damaging circumstances: either a temporary release—which has historically been more liberally used in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales—or the discharge at the end of the sentence.
	Clause 67(1) states:
	"The Secretary of State must make a victim information scheme and may from time to time make a new scheme or alterations to a scheme".
	We need to inform our minds about what a victim information scheme is. It is:
	"a scheme requiring the Secretary of State to make available information about the discharge or temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment in Northern Ireland imposed in respect of the commission of offences . . . to victims of the offences who wish to receive it".
	So first of all it is available to those who wish to receive it—many do not—but it is about the discharge or temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment. If those to whom the noble Baroness refers are sentenced after due process, to use the words in the amendment, they are covered anyway.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is right. There is no definition of "OTRs"—"on the runs". I agree that we have all used the term as our own shorthand, but there is no legal definition known to me, and I do not believe that it would be possible to find one. After all, I know what the noble Baroness is referring to. I think she means those who have committed offences which might generally be described as "terrorist" or might be scheduled offences. But the departed burglar is "on the run" in the same way as the departed terrorist is.
	I am saying that, first, the amendment is flawed. I appreciate that that does not go to the substance of the matter, but it would be quite improper—I hope I use that word without offence—to include a term as flawed as that in a Bill of any sort. But, in any event, if these prisoners are discharged or are temporarily released, they are covered in any event by Clause 67(2).
	As a further assistance to your Lordships, one needs to look at Clause 67(9). I take the point that is implicit in the noble Baroness's approach and, I believe, that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: what about someone who has been convicted but perhaps not sentenced because he escaped, as some did, before being sentenced? That is dealt with in Clause 67(9) which states:
	"A scheme may make different provision in relation to . . . imprisoned offenders convicted or sentenced at different times".
	I would make two points. The first may be thought by the noble Baroness to be an ignoble lawyer's point, but it is an important one when dealing with any statute, especially with a Bill of this importance. Secondly, if offenders have been imprisoned or discharged on temporary release, they are covered in any event.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, with gratitude and appreciation. It was extremely helpful.
	Will the Minister clarify whether he is considering the possibility that I might come back at Third Reading with an amendment related to subsection (9)? I agree that that would be a more appropriate place, but the problem remains. Those OTRs are likely to be released by the time the Bill becomes law. Therefore, I am concerned that the legislation should provide for that. Will the noble and learned Lord consider the issue further and advise me with his admirable expertise how I might bring into the Bill—possibly at Clause 67(9)—an amendment that would have that effect? I believe that I would have the House with me on that, as well as the noble and learned Lord. Will he clarify the issue?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not encouraging the noble Baroness to come back at Third Reading. I am perfectly happy for the sense of the House to be taken this evening.
	I return to the fundamental point, which is not about drafting, as the noble Baroness concedes. If OTRs, as they are known, though not in law, are sentenced to imprisonment, discharged or temporarily released, they are covered by the Act in any event. They are no different from any other criminal.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I be allowed to pursue the question further? I really do not understand.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: We never pay attention to them when the noble Baroness is speaking.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall try not to take advantage of that.
	I am seeking help in finding a way to ensure that the victims are notified when those people are about to be returned to the streets precisely because it seems quite possible that they will not be convicted and will not therefore be discharged. Nevertheless they will be known to have committed those crimes and would not have stayed away for 15 years had they not committed them.
	We need a formula to cover that. I recognise that the Minister has quoted exclusions in the Bill that will exclude them, but how can we include them?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Baroness intends to withdraw her amendment, as I suspect, I must not detain the House too much longer. I take her point that what she wants cannot be achieved in this way. I am more than willing to speak to her informally if she so wishes, but I cannot assist in the drafting at this stage. I should make it plain that no decision has been made in respect of those who are fugitive from the jurisdiction.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, since I understand from those remarks that there is no possibility of returning to the issue at Third Reading, I should like to test the opinion of the House, if only to make the point.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 86A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
	Division called.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 86A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Not content.

Lord Ampthill: The Not-Contents have it.
	On Question, amendment negatived.

Clause 71 [Local community safety partnerships]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 61, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) No local community safety partnership may be established until the Secretary of State has issued practical guidance about the way in which local community safety partnerships will operate."

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for that disturbance. It was clearly demonstrated by the chairman when he started speaking that the loudspeaker was not on. By the time he finished it was. I wear hearing aids and link into the loop. If the loop is not on, I do not hear. I apologise for the failure to follow through the Division that was intended.
	Amendment No. 87 would ensure that no local community safety partnership is established until practical guidance has been issued by the Secretary of State. I return to the point that practical guidance should accompany new introductions to the criminal justice system. I remain unsure as to how the new local community safety partnerships will sit alongside existing community safety structures and DPPs in Northern Ireland. My noble friends the Ulster Unionists have some points to make on that matter. Therefore, I shall not expound, except to say that it is not clear as it stands how those responsible for implementing the partnerships are supposed to proceed within the existing framework.
	The amendment is similar to one that I moved on a different subject earlier today. I am not suggesting that we do not want to see community safety partnerships operating satisfactorily and well. However, the legislation needs to be tidied up so that the necessary codes of practice or guidance notes are in place before any particular partnership, or the partnership scheme as a whole, gets under way. I beg to move.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, while I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intends with Amendment No. 87, I doubt he is other than optimistic in proposing it. Not setting up or establishing local community safety partnerships until such times as the Secretary of State has issued practical guidance is no guarantee that safeguards will be forthcoming. When we move to the next group of amendments I shall illustrate the futility of depending on any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the Northern Ireland Office, for practical guidance.
	Although I support, in principle, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I believe this amendment will not achieve his proposals.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I understand the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has served a purpose in highlighting the problem. Speaking to people who will be involved in those partnerships, it is apparent that there is a need for real clarity before we go too far down that road. It is important that the partnerships start on a firm footing, with no confusion over exactly what their role will be, and before we think about nominations.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be brief. I, too, support my noble friend Lord Glentoran. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, implied that it was impossible for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever to come forward with a practical solution to one of the problems of the Province. We Secretaries of State must stick together. I must dissent from him in that. I shall not rehearse again the 29 months since the Secretary of State made a preliminary Statement in January 2000 about these matters. An enormous amount of printer's ink has been spilt on those issues in the ensuing 29 months.
	If anyone has taken the trouble to read through all that has been said, there is some lack of clarity—partly because of changes in policy direction during the 29 months. I believe my noble friend has done the House a considerable service by tabling a preliminary and cautionary amendment to ensure that when we move into active mode there will be a hymn sheet from which everyone can sing.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall remind your Lordships that we have made a number of order-making powers in the clause subject to affirmative resolution. Therefore, we have further parliamentary scrutiny and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has approved that. A number of voluntary partnerships have already been established in district council areas. More partnerships are being developed by the statutory organisations.
	Certain guidelines have already been issued and are in place—for instance, how to perform a community audit. Others will be produced as needs are identified—for example, the steps to go through in setting up a partnership. Guidelines are a source of advice, but they are not compulsory. That is going to develop incrementally. The amendment would delay progress without any ascertainable benefit.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I believe that he understands the point I am trying to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 87ZA:
	Page 61, line 15, leave out from "State" to "a" in line 16 and insert "within each district council area establish"

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it is important to give some background on how local community safety partnerships have developed. The process has been without order or logic. To some extent, what we are doing today is belated and out of time.
	The consultative document, which I hold in my hand, was produced on 16th April this year. I shall not go through it in detail. Despite that document arriving on our desks only on or after that date, one month later—on 17th May—a letter from the Northern Ireland Office was delivered to district councils, stating the Government's intention to encourage the formation of local community safety partnerships. The letter advised district councils of the availability of funding for the post of community safety co-ordinators for the local partnerships. It went on:
	"We are taking this step in advance of the completion of the consultation on the strategy because we have been asked by a number of existing and prospective partnerships to make it available now".
	I ask your Lordships to ponder on that sequence of events and on that letter, which shows that whatever bona fide consultees may have contributed and irrespective of what may be decided in your Lordships' House and in another place, decisions have already been implemented. The letter that I have in my hand goes on to say that £30,000 is immediately available towards administrative support and to the post of community safety co-ordinator for local partnerships.
	Your Lordships will understand if I, as a borough councillor and as a Member of your Lordships' House, begin to wonder what my role and that of your Lordships is. I have no indication of which existing or prospective people have been so pressuring the Government that money is already being thrown at district councils.
	After Grand Committee, I went to a meeting to be addressed by some of those responsible for explaining the role of community safety partnerships. After I had heard some detail, I pointed out that we were creating but another talking shop. Northern Ireland already has more than 600 councillors, 108 Members of the Assembly, 18 Members of Parliament and three MEPs, not to mention those from Northern Ireland who sit in your Lordships' House or the innumerable multitude of quangos, committees, sub-committees and amalgams of committees.
	It is only fair that your Lordships understand that we are being told that these groups coming together will have funds and will contribute funds to make something positive happen for community safety. I asked officers of the housing executive and found that they have no money. They have less money for ordinary maintenance this year than they had last year. When I asked any of the statutory bodies that have been mentioned about providing money to local community safety partnerships, they said that maybe the Government would give them money. Bluntly, a lot of them are going to be there, simply because they think that more money might be thrown at the problem. We do not know.
	We do not even know what role in society the local community safety partnerships may have. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was good enough to write to us on 20th June, sending us a briefing paper prepared by the Northern Ireland Office on community safety and community safety partnerships. Paragraph 11 of that paper said that the functions of community safety partnerships and district policing partnerships are very different. It went on to say that the district policing partnerships,
	"are established as an accountability body for the police at local level".
	Section 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 contains no provision to delegate accountability—I emphasise that word—for police at local level to DPPs.
	It is worth pondering Section 16 of that Act a little further. It lists the functions of a district policing partnership. I shall not bore the House with that information in detail—noble Lords can find it themselves—but within the functions of district policing partnerships are the same duties as are now being delegated to community safety partnerships. The two lists are not identical in every detail, but there are many similarities. For example, district policing partnerships have to make arrangements,
	"to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the district".
	That duty is being imposed on community safety partnerships. Section 16(1)(e) of that Act says that a DPP can make arrangements for obtaining various things and,
	"such other functions as are conferred on it by any other statutory provision".
	So we did not have to have duplication; I draw that firmly to the attention of noble Lords.
	I must enter a caveat at this stage. I do not want it to be interpreted that somehow I am against community safety endeavours, just as it was somehow interpreted earlier—I was about to intervene—that because I have certain opinions about symbols, I do not know how to compromise with those who differ from me. I do not want to digress, but I thought that in that regard it was fully understood that the compromise was the Belfast agreement 1998 and that whatever happened should happen within the context of that agreement and should not be outside it, embellishing it or eroding it.
	I return to community safety partnerships. There was a meeting yesterday, I am led to believe, of the Policing Board, at which the SDLP, the DUP, Ulster Unionists and independents joined together to say that they did not want community safety partnerships. That conveys the difficulty—the conflict—that many of us have to face up to. Do we take the adamant view that we do not want community safety partnerships because they duplicate the responsibilities that are already vested in the DPPs—they divert essential members of other statutory bodies away from the work that they know and do best—or do I try to seek some sort of compromise, so that we give some sort of acquiescence to community safety partnerships but ensure that those community safety partnerships work under and are subordinate to DPPs?
	There are other considerations in this regard. The areas of responsibility of DPPs are coterminous with district council areas. The local police areas of command are coterminous—

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, for clarity, is the noble Lord speaking to Amendments Nos. 89B, 89C and 90A, which refer to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and DPPs, as well as to Amendment No. 87ZA?

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Yes, my Lords. I am trying, without impinging on the time of noble Lords, to paint the overall picture of how all of these matters impinge on each other.
	I was saying that district council areas are coterminous with police areas of command and with DPPs but that there has been no clarity about whether they are coterminous with the proposed community safety partnerships. We must now look critically at the whole concept and discover whether we can put in place an arrangement that will benefit society, that will secure value for money and which will not be exploited—that has been the huge difficulty that we have had so far.
	I was diverted for a moment by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who asked whether I was speaking to Amendment No. 89. I thought that we had moved on to Amendments Nos. 89B and 89C.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I can help; I think that there is some confusion. We are actually dealing with Amendments Nos. 87ZA and 89A. I think that the noble Lord has not been speaking to those amendments, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, courteously inquired whether the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, had perhaps misheard the Deputy Speaker call the amendments. Amendments Nos. 87ZA and 89A are both limited amendments. With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord is speaking to the amendments that have been called.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords. I did mishear. Although I have strayed beyond the scope of those amendments, my comments apply very much to Amendment No. 87ZA. I obviously cannot withdraw the points that I have made. However, they are pertinent to the whole question of whether we should establish community safety partnerships—if they are established—within the context of existing boundaries where other agencies and partnerships are coterminous with the district council area.
	I turn to Amendment No. 89A. I have rightly, if accidentally, indicated our problems. My proposal in Amendment No. 89A is that if there is to be a community safety partnership, that must be vested in local government membership. We have had a couple of unfortunate instances of amalgams and partnerships that did not have clarity about who had primacy and which ran into financial difficulty in terms of accountability. If we have an area that is coterminous with all of those various agencies and if we have a district council controlling whatever amount of money may be become available if the partnerships are established, those of us who are publicly accountable will know exactly what is happening. One reason why that should be the case is that, otherwise, pressure will be put on civil servants, who have no chance to answer back when certain responsibilities are imposed on them which are outside the spirit of what I believe is intended to be achieved in this regard.
	I apologise to noble Lords for moving beyond the scope of the amendment. But that saves the House from having to listen to me at greater length later on. I am grateful.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it would help me if he could indicate whether he wishes to move Amendment No. 87ZA and speak to Amendment Nos. 89A, 89B, 89C and 90A. I believe that it would assist the House were he to agree that in effect that is what he has done and then we can have one debate.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that it would always be my intention to try to assist the House. I may, in error, have managed to bring together five amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has exhibited his usual charm in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the sensible way forward that she has suggested. He is quite right in saying that the amendments in the second group which have been referred to touch on the same subject.
	The reason why, on balance, I disagree with my noble friend is that certainly from my own experience of local government on Merseyside where partnerships were established, they were enriched by other statutory organisations becoming involved in them. If they become too local government focused and orientated, I do not believe that that would necessarily be to the advantage of the partnership.
	I believe that the noble Lord is well aware that membership of the partnerships is designed to include health and social services boards, education, library and probation boards, the police, the Northern Ireland housing executive and other statutory organisations. When the Minister replies perhaps he will be able to confirm that the problem is that with the review of public administration which is currently under way by the executive, it is necessary in the meantime to reserve power to the Secretary of State because until the review has been concluded we do not know exactly who the statutory agencies are.
	The effect of Amendment No. 89A, were it to be passed by your Lordships this evening, reserving, for instance, the chairmanship and the administration in the local government membership of that partnership, would stunt and limit it. By reserving power to people who are elected representatives in local government would make the position far too narrow. It is right to trust the Secretary of State in this matter. I believe that the partnerships will be to the advantage of Northern Ireland if they work out as they have done in other urban areas in England. I know how passionate and committed is the noble Lord to the upholding of law and ensuring that the policing agencies get the public support to which they are entitled and that those responsible for breaking the law are brought to justice.
	If he were right in any sense that people not committed to upholding the law were able to infiltrate these partnerships and take them over, I am certain that in those circumstances the Secretary of State would remove those members from the partnerships who behaved in that way. It would help if the Minister were able to confirm that to be the case when he replies. In any event, knowing the noble and learned Lord and the Secretary of State, it is pretty unlikely that the people about whom all of us would have deep fears and reservations would be appointed to such bodies in the first place.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Maginnis and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said about the Safer Merseyside Partnership. I am sure that he is aware, as I am, that the chairperson of that partnership is a member of the Merseyside Police Authority. The chief constable is also a member.
	When I come to speak to Amendment No. 91, I shall refer to the question of whether they can be amalgamated to a certain extent or whether they should work together. Because Merseyside is one of the best practice examples in this country, it is absolutely clear that it is not the case that the safety partnerships cannot be linked with DPPs.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is correct. There is a need for the work of the community safety partnerships. What is that work? It is to assist in the reduction of crime and to bring about a reduction in the level of fear of crime to the people in the community and enhance community safety. But some of these things can also be carried out by the district policing partnerships.
	People believe that there is now duplication. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, there are already far too many quango organisations being created right across Northern Ireland in each district council area. In the council area of Moyle there are only 15,000 voters and yet massive community organisations are being created.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, fairly often points out that there is no one here from the SDLP. He very often speaks in a way which presents their case. I can say to the noble Lord that I can speak on behalf of the SDLP today because there is only one party in Northern Ireland which supports the Government as regards community safety partnerships and that is Sinn Fein.
	If the Government are up to speed, they will know that yesterday, at a meeting of the policing board, which I attended, the SDLP, the Unionists, the DUP and the independent members which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned, unanimously rejected the idea of the community safety partnerships. What is more, they instructed the chairman of the policing board to contact the Northern Ireland Office immediately and request that a Minister come before the policing board to explain what he is doing. That is the position of the SDLP on this matter.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, just to remind ourselves, following on the very helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am now speaking to Amendments Nos. 87ZA, 89A, which was in the original group, also Amendments Nos. 89B, 89C and 90A, which was the response of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I start with Amendment No. 87ZA.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is absolutely right. He quite rightly reminds us that the Northern Ireland executive has launched a comprehensive review of local public administration in Northern Ireland. It may well impact on many statutory organisations, not least the district councils. The noble Lord is further correct in indicating that the only purpose of the clause in the Bill is to allow the Secretary of State flexibility to take account of any changes when he comes to place the CSPs on a statutory footing. There is no more to it than that.
	As regards Amendment No. 89A, the chairmanship and administration of the local CSP shall be vested in the local government membership of the CSP, which, I suppose, in a Sinn Fein-controlled district council would inevitably give Sinn Fein the chairmanship and administration. I am not sure that the law of unintended consequences always works quite so ironically. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord wants.
	However, more fundamental than that, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has vast experience, is absolutely right. We do not want to nominate a lead partner. We want a partnership of equals with every one having a degree of moral ownership of the work of the partnership. That deals with the first two amendments.
	The next group is Amendments Nos. 89B, 89C and 90A. It will be remembered that in Grand Committee I accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the Secretary of State should be required to publish the reports. Therefore, there is no purpose in having the police service of Northern Ireland and other organisations specified in Amendment No 89B receiving the reports directly because I have accepted the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that they be published. The reports will be available in any event.
	Amendment No. 89C requires the CSP to have regard to the statutory functions of the DPP. But to echo the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the CSP will have to have regard to the statutory functions of all its members. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Amendment No. 89C is inappropriate. Amendment No. 90A defines a district police partnership, and I say nothing further about it.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when we come to debate Amendment No. 91 we shall have an opportunity further to develop the argument in the light of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment 87A:
	Page 61, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"(3) A local community safety partnership is to consist of such number of persons nominated by such organisations exercising statutory functions as the Secretary of State may by order specify; and "statutory functions" means functions conferred or imposed by or by virtue of any enactment."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 87B not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 88:
	Page 61, line 24, leave out from "be" to end of line 25 and insert "made up of the statutory organisations responsible for the delivery of various different services; and membership will include—
	(a) social services,
	(b) health authorities,
	(c) education authorities,
	(d) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive,
	(e) the police service for Northern Ireland,
	(f) the probation service for Northern Ireland, and
	(g) district councils"

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, Amendment No. 87A tabled by the noble and learned Lord does considerably better the job which I intended. In the light of that, I shall not move Amendment No. 88.

[Amendment Nos. 88 to 89C not moved].

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 62, line 9, leave out "shall" and insert "must"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have written to all noble Lords to explain why we decided to change "shall" to "must". I know that your Lordships will accept that that is a technical point to achieve consistency. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Leave out Clause 71.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, we are grateful for the amendment on the composition of the safety partnerships. However, I am still unhappy about the fact that two separate bodies deal with one issue; that is, crime. Therefore, I tabled Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. First, I declare an interest. Like my noble friend Lord Kilclooney, I serve on the Policing Board. I serve also on the sub-committee for community affairs, which deals with DPPs. My support for a measure which provides community safety is absolute. There is no question of that. However, I believe that the partnership should be much closer to, or even part of, district policing partnerships.
	However, there are two misconceptions. The first is that DPPs are police. No members of DPPs are policemen; they are councillors and independent members not chosen by but approved by the Policing Board. There will be very few grounds for disapproving. DPPs are put before the board for approval. The partnerships could better be called "district partnerships on policing matters". The idea of a district policing partnership automatically leads one to believe that it is a policing institute. However, that is beside the point. The police attend only to discuss issues and to put forward their local policing plan. They are not in attendance the whole time.
	The second misconception is that the Government know what they are talking about and no one else does. That is not always true, as a number of noble Lords believe is the case here. In his consultation document, the Secretary of State said:
	"The development of this strategy is one of the key recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review".
	Development of the strategy is, but not into separate bodies. That is clearly stated in paragraph 11.11. The Government take the review and spill it out. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who is not in her place, said a great deal about how wonderful the review was—when it suited her. It obviously did not suit the Government on this occasion. The Secretary of State failed to state that that was in the review. However, a letter from the private secretary to Des Browne, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, stated that Ministers were conscious that DPPs were established as a mechanism to hold the police to account. That is wrong.
	As my noble friend Lord Maginnis said, that is not stated in the Act. Unlike my noble friend, I shall go through the functions because I am speaking to the right amendment, and cannot be interrupted. Section 16(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 states:
	"(a) to provide views to the district commander . . .
	(b) to monitor the performance of the police . . .
	(c) to make arrangements for obtaining—
	(i) the views of the public . . .
	(d) to act as a general forum . . .".
	Those tasks are set out in the 2000 Act. However, they are amazingly similar to the tasks for safety partnerships outlined in Clause 71. We have heard about the measure for the provision of finance.
	In the minutes of a meeting with the Community Affairs Committee of the Policing Board, the head of the Criminal Justice Services Division stated that community safety partnerships could become a sub-committee of DPPs. I heard him say that; he said it relatively freely. However, I accept that when he returned to the office he had second thoughts. He wrote a letter which states:
	"While I did agree, in response to a question, that it might be possible to develop a model involving a sub-committee of the DPP as suggested, I fear that your letter rather misrepresents my position on this. I would not advocate such an arrangement. Our legal advice is that taking a direct role in relation to community safety would be outside the vires of the DPP".
	He continues:
	"You suggest that I might be able to explain to the Committee how a sub-group of the DPP might work. I am afraid that I would not be qualified to do this. I have only a basic understanding of the DPP, limited to their role and function".
	If he has such a basic understanding of it, what serious right has he to say that it should not be? I fail to see that.
	The examples I have quoted show a total lack of understanding and a lack of joined-up government and thinking. How on earth can the two departments in the Northern Ireland Office, one involved in the policing Bill and the other in this Bill, not understand what each is doing, and argue the point? I cannot discover why the NIO is so determined to keep these two bodies separate. It is flying in the face of overwhelming opposition against its strategy for two separate bodies.
	Unlike the NIO, the conclusions of those against the strategy came about as a result of well-informed, thoroughly consulted and well-justified research of both sides of the argument. One has to know who the bodies are and why they are doing this, and then ask why the Government are hell bent on their course. Perhaps it is jobs for the boys; I do not know. People have been working on this for a long time.
	We have heard about the consultative document. However, the closing date for responses was 3rd July; that is, midnight last night, and that has been extended. Yet here we are debating the Bill. That is brilliant. In his foreword, the Secretary of State says,
	"I will carefully take into account all the views".
	He has done well since midnight. At the end of the document, the following questions are asked:
	"Is the strategy structured correctly? Is the scope relevant?"
	Before the Minister states that the consultation affects only issues outside the Bill, we must realise that that is not so, as the questions show. Structure and strategy are what the Bill is about. It is not about the detail. We do not have the codes of conduct or the suggestions for how they will operate. Therefore, this concerns the Bill.
	Clearly, in order to justify separation of the two bodies, their tasks must be separate. However, the nine key issues for community safety as laid out by our friends, the Community Justice Service Division, not by me, are car crime; domestic burglary; business and retail crime; offences against women; youth offending; offences of prejudice and hatred—sectarianism and racism; fear of crime; drugs and alcohol; and street violence. Is the prevention of any of those not connected closely with the police? The answer is not one; not even the fear of crime, which is not a crime in itself. If one looks in the police documents, which should be available to the Minister, it says clearly that they have to come back to fear of crime in the coming years. Therefore, although it is not a crime, it is included.
	Only this department of the NIO, which admits that it knows virtually nothing about DPPs—it said so, not me—after working on it for three years, is supporting it. That is the core of the problem. It is not about parties, political beliefs, sectarianism, Roman Catholics, Protestants or ethnic minorities. It is straightforward management of one's affairs in the correct and proper way.
	Who is against the strategy? The Criminal Justice Review Group is against having two different bodies. The Government fly in the face of that. At least 25 out of 26 councils are against it and have stated so. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is against having two parties. It is not against community safety; it has community safety officers. Are we about to appoint them? The big political term is community policing. Are we about to say that it has no role because we have community safety partnerships? No.
	Your Lordships have just heard that the Policing Board is against the provisions across the political divide. There are other consultees. If one looks at the list of consultees—I am not going to go through it—some will support the implementation plan. But like the Criminal Justice Services Division of the NIO, they will know little about the tasks of DPPs. So I would expect them to be pro a safety plan, as I am, but when one knows a little more about DPPs, one realises that they should not accept it.
	The question is not if, but how. I have already detailed the response of the Criminal Justice Review Group and I do not have to say any more. My noble friend Lord Maginnis mentioned most of the points about the councils. The Policing Board has come through to us with several additional problems.
	What is the legal status of the bodies? Non-statutory. Who indemnifies the bodies? The councils are worried about that. They are being provided with £30,000 for staffing. They do not have indemnity cover. If many councils over here are not strapped for cash, I assure your Lordships that ours are. Who indemnifies the members? That is a problem. Who has the responsibility for audit and to whom are they accountable?
	The DPP is a statutory nominated body, but this is not. For example, Belfast has said that it cannot staff its four bodies. How will it be done? They will be run as a group of committees together with the DPP. Another noble Lord has dealt with the issue of the chairman.
	The Safer Merseyside Partnership, to which my noble friend Lord Alton referred, is a classic example of how to do it, but it does not have DPPs with the strength of ours. That is probably why the police are on it. But the police have to be there. It is pie in the sky that someone can deal with safety in one corner of the town without the police knowing. It is no good saying that the bodies will talk to one another. Our police are strapped. They will have to attend DPPs by law. If they are pushed for staff they will not attend the community safety partnerships; they do not have to and why should they? They are accountable through the Policing Board, not the DPP.
	The Police Service's response was luckily submitted before midnight or the later date, so the Secretary of State should have it. It says that the information about the commonality of the issues dealt with by DPPs and safety partnerships is,
	"further evidence of the need for the work of DPPs and community safety partnership to be integrated as far as possible".
	The police are accountable to the Policing Board through the Northern Ireland policing plan. They are not accountable to the DPPs. The DPPs monitor, ask questions and make suggestions.
	Paragraph 4.51 of the consultative document refers to key relationships. It says on safety partnerships,
	"It will be important that policing plans also reflect the Government objectives for the reduction of crime . . . It will be vital therefore for the CSU to establish an effective working relationship with the Policing Board, in view of that body's direct responsibility for policing",
	which is fine, but we are talking about the local level. That is why we have the safety partnerships. It continues,
	"most critically, for local CSP's to have close links with the District Policing Partnership established in their area to hold the police to account".
	That is their phraseology, but it is incorrect.
	It is all about linking closer together, yet the Government are trying to push the bodies apart. I am sorry that this is taking a while but it is about how this is meant to work. The board is under a statutory obligation to produce a draft code of practice. It has done so, and in paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4—I shall not read them to your Lordships—it says that the DPPs would have to have a close working relationship with the community safety partnerships and all local bodies statutory and otherwise.
	When the document was presented to the Northern Ireland Office, it said, "take it out". The provision was taken out, which is amazing. Ultimately the Policing Board through the police is responsible for the nine key issues we discussed, at present laid down for safety partnerships. As it stands, DPPs and safety partnerships are separate bodies, but they are doing the same thing: studying and getting returns on causes and deterrents; solving crimes. There are bound to be differences in their surveys.
	The safety partnerships could and should be part of DPPs or much more closely linked; as a sub-committee, for example. Yet the legal advice to the Criminal Justice Service Division seems to be incorrect. The head of that division said in his letter:
	"Our legal advice is that taking a direct role in relation to community safety would be outside the vires of the DPP . . . in comments on an early draft of your code on the DPP functions".
	Section 16(1)(e) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 states in relation to the functions of the DPP—and it was left wide open for precisely this purpose,
	"such other functions as are conferred on it by any other statutory provision".
	So we could do it now. It would be easy; a quick amendment and it would be done.
	Immediately the response will be that sub-committees are not allowed. So Section 21, which is significantly in relation to Belfast but easily amended, permits sub-committees and people from outside who are not in the partnership in the beginning. There is no problem with including statutory bodies, so what is the problem?
	I turn to the funding of £2.5 million per year. It is said that there will be Lottery money, peace and reconciliation money, and so on. Between 26 partnerships, £2.5 million is not a great deal of money; I wish there was more. Do any noble Lords have an idea how much CCTV cost in North Belfast in the past month? I believe it was £1.25 million. We need more money.
	With reference to the Lottery and other cross-border funds, are noble Lords aware that in Northern Ireland they hate joint funding? They like to fund things straight off. If the NIO is funding around the corner to the safety partnerships and if it is a reserve function such as security, there should be joint security through the DPPs. If not, why are they funding at the bottom level within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, department of housing and so on? I suggest that it is bypassing the Assembly. I support the amendment and I should like the Government to propose something in its stead.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am as strongly opposed to unnecessary bureaucracy and redundant organisations as anybody else in your Lordships' House. Having made that point, perhaps I can make just one point about policing and one point on community safety.
	I know that over the years in Northern Ireland bodies called police and public liaison committees were set up. They existed in the worst of times and in face of considerable hostility to the police from a number of different quarters. Some of them, for example the one in Derry, still managed to do good work. I hope that the work of those bodies will not be lost sight of but will be carried forward into such district policing partnerships as may occur in future.
	On the matter of community safety, for many years some very good work has been done on crime prevention by, for example, Extern, which was mentioned earlier, by NIACRO, of which I have the honour to be president, and by quite a variety and range of youth organisations and other voluntary bodies. I hope that that work will not be lost in the sand but will be carried forward into this wider concept of community safety, which has quite a lot going for it.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, briefly I too should like to speak on Clause 71 and oppose its removal from the Bill. Though I understand the points made by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough this afternoon, I disagree with him about the need to take out this clause, not least because it is extremely flexible, on any reading.
	The power in the clause can be exercised only after discussion with the Executive and the best way forward determined. It also recognises that bodies like the police could and should be involved in the local community safety partnerships and the Secretary of State is given the right in subsection (3) to specify, by order, who the membership of those bodies should be. So here is the opportunity to involve the police and I am certain that, given the experience of the Mersey partnership—referred to several times this evening—that is the way to do it.
	Five years ago, when I had the honour to become a Member of your Lordships' House, I made my maiden speech on the subject of punishment beatings and the continued anarchy that reigned in many parts of Northern Ireland. Even to this day we know that there are people from both sides of the divide who have no respect for the law, who are not working with the police to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and who ride roughshod over the wishes of the people in the community. But any of us who travel in Northern Ireland and meet people from both sides of the divide know that there is a common wish to see law and order established; the removal of the no-go areas; the drug barons dealt with; and an end to the kind of tensions there have been, especially involving youth crime. I am certain that the tools of local community and safety partnerships are a useful part of the armoury in dealing with those issues.
	Noble Lords today have warned about the dangers of unrest during this month and in the month that will follow in various parts of Northern Ireland. I understand in the context of the earlier debate on flags and symbols that in some parts of Northern Ireland the Palestinian flag is being flown in the nationalist communities and the Israeli flag in the unionist community, entrenching even further division. That is not a good example on which to build if we want hope for Northern Ireland. This enabling clause is one way forward. The Government have shown some imagination in the way they have drafted this Bill. It will be a great tragedy now to remove this clause.
	Though I recognise the arguments about creating too many quangos and appointed bodies, the Secretary of State has the power in this clause to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication and replication. I am sure that he will take into account the need to have clear lines established, with authority given to perhaps just one body dealing with those issues. I hope that that will be vested in something like a local community and safety partnership rather than just a policing partnership.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I rise simply to say that we are privileged to have heard the views of two distinguished members of the Policing Board, who have expressed to your Lordships not just their own views but the views of all the parties across the board who serve on the Policing Board. With respect I say that your Lordships, and the Government would be unwise to disregard those views.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, when I first came to this Bill, I felt that Clause 71 should not be part of it. I did not feel it was a part of the total judicial process. As the Bill has progressed I have changed my opinion.
	I agree, and am delighted to do so, with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. On the other hand, what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, had to say was both extremely interesting and worrying. On this side of the House we have been seriously concerned about the DPPs per se; about the potential conflicts of interest and over-bureaucratic management in such a small community and in particular—small items but they will be important at the time—the time that the police force will have to give to servicing those different groups when they could probably be spending their time in a more worthwhile way.
	Without making a long speech I simply say that, on this side of the Chamber, we do not believe it is right to attempt to remove Clause 71 tonight. But we shall continue to chase the Government to tidy up their act in regard to the relationships between district policing partnerships, local authorities, community safety partnerships and so forth. There are too many local authorities—we hope Stormont will tackle that. As a result of there being too many local authorities there will be too many DPPs; as a result of that there will also be too many community and safety partnerships. In general, too much money will be wasted and there will be too many people going round in circles to achieve what we all want to see achieved; that is, a clearing of the decks and a clear strategy for improving community safety in Northern Ireland involving the people of all communities.
	It is with regret that I say to noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber that we will not be supporting the removal of Clause 71.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, before the Lord Privy Seal rises to respond, I must indicate that such is my concern—I hope I spelt it out in general terms earlier in previous amendments; my noble friend Lord Brookeborough spelt it out in detail—that I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal in terms of his response that he does not, as he did with me on the last group of amendments, ridicule by implication what has been said here this evening.
	The Lord Privy Seal suggested that, by asking that the chairmanship should be vested in district councils, I was somehow promoting Sinn Fein, which may well have chairmen on some district councils. But the Lord Privy Seal well knows that there are members of Sinn Fein in many organisations. I sought to have district councils in the forefront because, irrespective of who may be the chairman or who may be in control, they are open to public accountability and to public scrutiny in a way that statutory bodies cannot be without further huge costs to the Exchequer and individual departments.
	The Lord Privy Seal did not address the issues that were raised in relation to the precipitate way in which things were being put into place before there were any fundamental ground rules. I hope that on this occasion he will take the opportunity to enlarge on some of the points he may have missed earlier in the evening.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understand the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and my noble kinsman the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on the details of Clause 71. I much admire the calm and good sense of the Minister in continuously bringing us back to the text of the Bill and its relationship to the amendments. One of the problems which those noble Lords trying to deal with this Bill have is that we are dealing with a real-time process on the Government's side which is operating in parallel to the examination and scrutiny of the Bill.
	Perhaps I may give a tiny example in order to make the point. On Monday, the noble and learned Lord the Minister resented the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the Government's conduct was tardy in an area of the consultative process relating to a particular list of organisations. The Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Browne—whom I greatly admire—said on 5th September in Committee in the other place that he hoped he would be able to complete the process that we are discussing by Report in the House of Lords. We now know from the noble and learned Lord's statement on Monday on Report that Mr Browne did not actually write until 28th February to consult the bodies involved in the exercise. That was only six days before the Report stage in the Commons. I realise that that was not necessarily tardiness, but inevitably the two processes are not proceeding at the same pace. That places us all in some difficulty.
	In this instance the consultative document was not sent out until the middle of April, which is a full six weeks after the Bill had its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Just as we are doing our best to sympathise with the noble and learned Lord the Minister, I hope that he will have some sympathy with our difficulty in following the detail of the Bill.
	The Minister perfectly properly picked up my noble friend Lady Park on the definition of OTRs and the difficulty of putting such individuals in the Bill. We have a similar difficulty in terms of how the detail will work when the process is going on in parallel and, if anything, a little behind the progress of the Bill.
	When the Secretary of State published his foreword to the consultative document he said:
	"I am pleased to present this consultation paper setting out our ideas on a new inclusive partnership approach to creating a safer Northern Ireland.
	The development of this strategy was one of the key recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review".
	What he did not do was to specify which recommendation in the criminal justice review he was referring to. He may have been referring to paragraph 11.51, which was obviously a strategic statement, because the Government immediately resisted and rejected the criminal justice review's recommendation in paragraph 11.61. The Minister courteously explained to me in a letter between Grand Committee and Report stage why it was not possible to consider the criminal justice review's recommendation in paragraph 11.61, which underlies some of the frustration expressed from the Cross-Benches in terms of the relationships between district police partnerships and community safety partnerships.
	I confess that I am not wholly clear where the Government are going, or even the Government know where they are going. If one does not know where one is trying to get to, any road will get one there.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may say something further on this issue. I quote from the noble and learned Lord's helpful letter of 3rd July about Amendment No. 87A. He said:
	"As I explained, the Northern Ireland Executive has launched a Review of Public Administration, which is likely to result in significant changes to existing roles and responsibilities across organisations that could be expected to contribute to community safety. It would not be sensible to fix long-term arrangements now until the future shape of public administration in Northern Ireland becomes clearer".
	That seems to me to support what my noble friend Lord Brooke has just said.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall just do as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, commended me for doing and go to the text of the amendment, which I know may be wearisome. The amendment simply states:
	"Leave out Clause 71".
	So, if noble Lords are minded to have local community safety partnerships they would vote against the amendment and if noble Lords thought that there was no purpose in them they would vote for the amendment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that I was ridiculing his earlier proposition. I was not. I was demonstrating that if one set out prescriptive rules in statute in some local authorities one would actually vest the administration and the chairmanship of a relevant body with Sinn Fein. That is one of the dangers of having over-prescriptive legislation.
	I do not think that I can put the Government's approach better than the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Glentoran, have. Both said exactly what I have said: if noble Lords are in favour of these partnerships, which have a role to play, they should vote against the amendment.
	There is a difference between these partnerships and the policing partnerships, the DPPs. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is quite right to say that all their functions are set out in Section 16(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. They are not the same functions as one finds in Clause 71 of the Bill. I believe that the experience referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Merseyside offers an opportunity for local community safety partnerships to do work which is quite different from the work of the district policing partnership. I shall not read out Section 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, but I just remind your Lordships of its existence and its contents.
	The local community safety partnerships have various duties which are clearly set out in Clause 71(4). I shall not read them out. They are on pages 61 and 62 of the Bill. The cautionary note that was sounded by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is one that the Government ought to pay attention to. Other noble Lords quite reasonably spoke of the possibility of over-bureaucratic solutions and a duplication of effort.
	The Police Service for Northern Ireland will be represented on the community safety partnerships, but the primary focus of the DPP is on policing issues. The CSP has a much wider remit. One has only to look at Clause 71(4)(c) and (d). That duty is utterly different from that which a policing authority would normally be carrying out.
	This is an opportunity for flexible systems for a divided community. I cannot assist further. I believe that Clause 71 is perfectly straightforward. If one supports it, one votes against the amendment; if one thinks there is no purpose in having them one votes for the amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I wish to give him time perhaps to speak and consider the matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that we can return to this at a later date. But at this stage I wish to withdraw our amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 12 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 120, line 21, leave out from beginning to "(reserved" and insert—
	"62 The Northern Ireland Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.
	62A In section 75(3) (duty on public authorities to have regard to need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups), after paragraph (cd) (inserted by section (Equality and non-discrimination) of this Act) insert—
	"(ce) the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland;
	(cf) the Northern Ireland Law Commission;".
	62B In section 76(7) (discrimination by public authorities), after "Probation Board for Northern Ireland;" insert—
	"(fa) the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland;
	(fb) the Northern Ireland Law Commission;".
	62C (1) Schedule 3"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two new institutions under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which are set out in Part 3. They are the criminal justice inspectorate and the law commission. The amendment designates them for the purposes of Sections 75 and 76 of the Northern Ireland Act. Your Lordships responded with approval on Monday when we did the same with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that we have been responsive to the mood of your Lordships. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 13 [Repeals and revocations]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 92A:
	Page 129, line 23, column 2, leave out "entry relating to" and insert "entries relating to the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (Northern Ireland) and"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. It seeks to omit the reference to the,
	"Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (Northern Ireland)",
	from the list of public authorities prescribed by Part 7, Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	The Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (Northern Ireland) members is rendered obsolete by the new arrangements for lay magistrates. Therefore, we do not need the reference. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 88 [Transitionals and savings]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 69, line 25, leave out from "to" to end of line 29 and insert "take over the conduct of all proceedings of the description specified in that subsection, he is under a duty to take over the conduct of only such proceedings of that description as it is reasonably practicable for him to conduct until the earlier of—
	(a) the time when it is first reasonably practicable for him to take over the conduct of all proceedings of that description, and
	(b) the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which that subsection comes into force."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this amendment is again not grouped. I think that there must be some slight error here with which I shall amuse your Lordships, because it is an amendment in my name but my instructions are to "resist everything". I am sure that that was placed there to make sure that I was carefully following my instructions.
	When my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General made the proposals for the expansion of the existing department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, your Lordships were grateful for his great care. We listened carefully to various questions and thoughts offered by your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships regard this as a response to concerns expressed, but we did not think that the timescale to establish the new service should be left open-ended. My noble and learned friend has therefore agreed that we should include a sunset clause in the Bill that would set a time limit of five years for that establishment—although I think that every Member of the House would hope that the actual timescale would be shorter.
	We have therefore accepted—I do not say this with any sense of self-congratulation—that there ought to be a sunset clause provision of five years. But I ought to say that the updated implementation plan will give further detail on timescale as events develop. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Tax Credits Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 52 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT 1

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	"Annual report to Parliament
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the Board that shall include—
	(a) the accounts of the Board;
	(b) an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit;
	(c) an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit;
	(d) data on the number of investigations carried out into fraud, the number of prosecutions and the number of convictions; and
	(e) an estimate of the cost to employers of operating tax credits."
	The Commons disagreed to the amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu:
	1A Insert the following new clause—
	"Annual reports
	(1) The Board must make to the Treasury an annual report about—
	(a) the matters required by section 2(5) to be set forth in the accounts mentioned in section 13 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 (c. 21),
	(b) the number of awards of child tax credit and of working tax credit,
	(c) the number of enquiries conducted under section 18,
	(d) the number of penalties imposed under this Part, and
	(e) the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences connected with tax credits.
	(2) The Treasury must publish each annual report made to it under subsection (1) and lay a copy before each House of Parliament."

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.
	The Government have listened sympathetically to the view of this House that an annual report on tax credits would be a useful vehicle to ensure effective scrutiny of the operation of the new tax credit system. As noble Lords will recall, I explained on Report that most of the information required for the annual report is already published—much of it in the Board of the Inland Revenue's annual report, which is laid before both Houses. But we want to ensure transparency in the operation of tax credits and to enable proper scrutiny.
	So, although we still believe that a requirement for an annual report is strictly unnecessary, we have listened sympathetically to your Lordships' view that it would be useful for the relevant information to be contained in a single document focussed specifically on tax credits. I am therefore pleased to speak to the government amendment moved in the other place in lieu of the Lords amendment. Please, my Lords, no jokes about scissors and paste or cutting and gluing.
	The government amendment covers much the same ground as the amendment made by your Lordships. Much of the difference is due to a tidying up of the drafting—a matter that I know is close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It may be helpful to the House if I explain the drafting changes. First, a report such as this is properly for the Board of the Inland Revenue to produce and present to the Treasury, rather than for my right honourable friend the Chancellor to produce himself. As the House is well aware, the Inland Revenue reports to Treasury Ministers, which is why subsection (2) of the new clause imposes on the Treasury the requirement to lay the report before both Houses.
	Secondly, I believe that the intention behind paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's amendment was that the report should include the amount of tax credit paid out each year, as reported in the Inland Revenue's departmental accounts. That was not clear in the drafting of the Lords amendment, and subsection (1)(a) of the new clause in the government amendment sets that out in detail. I hope that that is helpful.
	I turn to the other items. Subsection (1)(b) makes clear that the report will set out the number of awards of each tax credit made in a year. As the House will know, we normally publish statistical reports of the awards of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit on a quarterly basis, but we understand the value of including information about awards in an annual report on tax credits. That will be a useful set of data to assess whether the credits are reaching the right families.
	Subsections (1)(c), (d) and (e) cover information relating to compliance inquiries, penalties and prosecutions. Of course, there must be the greatest transparency in the reporting of the Inland Revenue's compliance activity. Much of that information is already provided in relation to WFTC and DPTC as part of the Inland Revenue's annual report. But again, we acknowledge the convenience of bringing together that information in a single report. Indeed, the government amendment goes further in that respect than the amendment passed by your Lordships' House. The Government's amendment will cover not only details of prosecutions—as noble Lords intended—but details of the number of compliance inquiries undertaken and the number of penalties imposed. That is an important and I hope helpful addition.
	There was concern in another place that the number of prosecutions for tax credit fraud currently carried by the Inland Revenue was low and showed a lack of determination on its part to tackle fraud. That is not true. The Inland Revenue is serious in its efforts to tackle fraud both in respect of tax credits and in the tax system more generally. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that information will be useful to them.
	Finally, the House will no doubt be aware that the new clause moved by the Government in another place does not include reference to the cost to employers of paying out working tax credit. As I made clear to noble Lords on Report, it is inappropriate to provide an estimate of employers' costs in an annual report. That matter is properly and comprehensively addressed by the regulatory impact assessment. The RIA is being revised in the light of announcements made in the Budget. The revised assessment will be made available to Members of both Houses.
	However, if your Lordships would find it helpful, I can give an undertaking that the information carried by the RIA will be included in the report—in other words, bringing together all of the information in one place. Given that a new RIA is made not every year but only as, when and if the financial assessment changes, it would not make sense to promise to review it each year. But I am happy to include the RIA assessment, keep it in the annual report and then change it as and when appropriate, thus bringing even that information into the body of the one report.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have clarified the drafting. We have gone even further than your Lordships wanted in producing additional information about fraud and prosecution. We have addressed the substance of concern about employers—that the information be available—without accepting that it is the job of the Inland Revenue to continue to make regular, annual reports on that. That is a matter for employers. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have taken account of the will of this House and are seeking to be helpful; that we have amended the Opposition amendment to embody it in the Bill; and that honour is served.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think that it is true to say that one's view of another place is rather different from this end of the building than when one is in the other place. Even after 33 years in the other place, having chaired the Procedure Committee on various occasions and so on, I read with some surprise the report of the Commons debates on 26th June, when the amendments were discussed. Curiously, when I read Hansard, the amendment in lieu does not appear anywhere. It is therefore extraordinarily difficult to follow what the subsequent debate is all about. The Minister failed to move the amendment in lieu at either the beginning or the end of her speech, but let us leave that on one side. It is in front of us now so I suppose that it is here by some process of osmosis.
	On the point that the noble Baroness has explained about the Inland Revenue being responsible rather than the Chancellor, which we fully understand, the Minister in another place said:
	"That is why subsection (3) of the new clause imposes"—[Official Report, Commons, 26/6.02; col. 892.],
	the Treasury requirement, and so on. In fact, as your Lordships will see from the amendment before us, there is no subsection (3). It gets worse, because later on in the debate there is further confusion about what is in the amendment and on the Order Paper. The Minister refers to subsection (f), which also does not exist. None the less, one struggled through it all, but it makes life a little more difficult when we come to consider the Commons amendments.
	There is another point that deserves some consideration. The amendment before us relates to the Bill as it first arrived in your Lordships' House. We do not have a re-print that shows the amendments made by your Lordships and agreed to by the Commons. That is of no consequence for this evening's debate, but, given the utter chaos that accompanied the government amendments that were accepted in this House and in another place, it would have been incredibly difficult to know what the amendment was, had it been of a more technical nature. Dozens of amendments were made here and accepted in another place, but this version of the Bill makes no reference to them. It would be terribly difficult to juggle all the papers.
	I now turn to the points of substance. We raised the matter of employers' costs in earlier debates. This evening, the Minister—who has, I think, been sympathetic throughout to the idea of an annual report—gave a further undertaking on that issue. We understand the difficulty, but, despite what was said in another place, the costs will vary over time, and the regulatory impact assessment that we have now will be out of date by a later stage. If I understood the Minister correctly, she said that, if there were a significant change, she would take steps to ensure that we are aware of what is going on.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall clarify the matter. The regulatory impact assessment happens when legislation is changed, as part of that process. At that point the revised figures would be incorporated into the annual report.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is very welcome. In the light of the Minister's helpful reply, we can leave that aspect to one side.
	The second issue is take-up. Although it is not entirely clear, the Minister in another place seemed to be under the impression that the Government's amendment in lieu somehow covered the points that our amendment made about the take-up of working tax credit and the estimate of the take-up of child tax credit. My understanding is that that is not the case, although I am open to correction. With the Government's amendment in lieu, we will not get an estimate of take-up; we will get the number of awards of working tax credit and so on. That is something different.
	Take-up is an important issue. We must know to what extent the tax credits are taken up. We need a comparison of the number of people who might be entitled to them and the number of people who actually receive them. The Minister in another place seemed to think that that was covered in the amendment in lieu, but that is not my understanding. Perhaps the Minister can correct me on that.
	The third matter with which we are concerned is fraud and prosecution. Again, the amendment in lieu goes somewhat further than we had anticipated, as the Minister said. We asked for data on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions, whereas the Government's amendment in lieu goes somewhat further. It was explained in another place that that was because the Inland Revenue penalties were different from—and, I suppose, more extensive than—the penalties normally available to the Department for Work and Pensions. In that respect, we can say that the amendment is further progress.
	I am not saying that everything that we would have liked is there. The point about take-up is important. However, the principle of an annual report has been accepted, and that is to be welcomed. Although the amendment is not a whole loaf, it is a significant improvement, made as a result of the debates in this House and the Government's undertaking to consider and react to the points raised. It would not be right to reject the amendment and go any further, not least because of the technical point, which the Minister made, that it is for the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, not the Chancellor, to make the report. We welcome the Government's flexible attitude, even though they have not met all the points we made.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the proceedings on the amendment do credit to a bicameral parliamentary system. Occasionally, people, fearing that Parliament may become more truly bicameral, express fears of deadlock. They do not realise how lucky they are. They should consider the constitution of the 17th century Dutch republic. It was a union of seven autonomous provinces, each sending delegates to a federal states general. Those delegates were mandated, so, whenever the seven provinces' delegates disagreed, they all had to go back for further instructions. Executive power rested with the stadtholder, who had little, if any, formal legal authority. Anything of importance needed the assent of the chief burgomaster of Amsterdam, who would be largely responsible for funding it. One would have thought that nothing could have worked under such a system: in fact, it was the best governed country in 17th century Europe.
	The amendment illustrates that, when people want to reach a compromise, they can do it extremely well. Before listening to the Minister, I was going to say that two thirds of a loaf was better than no bread. However, having listened to what the Minister said about the regulatory impact assessment, the costs to business and the possibility of including that information in the annual report, I think that we have just about the whole loaf. The amendment is rather better drafted than it was in the form in which we originally left it. The Minister and those responsible in another place deserve our thanks for what they have done.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a point about take-up. It is worth attention. I assume that it will be possible to discover how many people were eligible for the tax credit and did not apply for it and that, were that information to be available, it would be included in a report. The Government are as interested in that information as we are.
	The reference to Clause 18 clarifies a good deal. The distinction between prosecutions and convictions is valuable. Generally, the amendment has had a wash and brush-up, which has done it nothing but good. I thank the Minister warmly for her part in the story, and I welcome the amendment before us now.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm response from noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised one major concern. Although he welcomed the clarification of what we were going to cover, including the incorporation of information that was in the regulatory impact assessment, he again raised the question of take-up.
	There is an ambiguity in the original amendment, which, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, picked up. The amendment refers to,
	"an estimate of the take-up".
	Take-up is something that has happened. If the credit has been taken up, we need not give an estimate; we can give actual numbers. Had the amendment referred to "an estimate of entitlement", it would have picked up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that the other place did not seem to understand what we were getting at. I do not want to sound picky, but it may be that the amendment, as originally drafted, laid itself open to two readings. The other place took the view that take-up was something that had been taken up, as opposed to an estimate of entitlement.
	There is, in any case, an issue about entitlement. We have a good idea what the entitlement ought to be for families with children because we can extrapolate from the figures for those currently in the system. However, there is a new group—we think about 300,000—of adults over 25 who are without children whose incomes are sufficiently modest. We do not know whether it is 300,000, or 200,000, or 400,000 or whether circumstances will change. It is very flaky. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. We want the system to succeed, and we will track things as far as we can. There will be the sort of outreach work and information provision to encourage take-up that there was for the pension credit—the minimum income guarantee. We have no reason not to wish for people to take this up. Therefore the noble Lord need not worry that we shall not actively pursue it.
	With that information, I am glad that noble Lords have been able to welcome the amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Statement and Budget Report

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002–03, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002–03 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, each year the Government report information to the European Commission on our main economic policy measures. The procedure is set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the European Communities Treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure.
	The objective is to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty: non-inflationary economic growth; respect for the environment; a high level of employment and social protection; and raising the standard of living and quality of life for citizens across the UK and the entire European Union. Those goals are consistent with the Government's own approach to economic policy.
	Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the government information sent to the Commission for this purpose. The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Financial Statement and Budget Report, brought together in "Budget 2002". This material will form the basis of the information that we send to the European Commission.
	Sharing the information in the Budget document with our European partners allows us to influence the development of the European Union, bringing enhanced employment and growth to Britain and other member states.
	Five years ago this Government's first Budget set out long-term objectives and far-reaching reforms to achieve economic stability and higher levels of employment. In the last year, Britain has experienced the lowest inflation and lowest interest rates since the 1960s; for the first time for half a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in America, Japan and Europe.
	In this Budget, the first of the new Parliament, our task is to address, through modernisation and reform, three long-term challenges: the challenge of enterprise, with new incentives to raise investment and reward entrepreneurship; the challenge of family prosperity for all, with extra support for hard-working families, in the Tax Credits Bill which in the past five minutes has completed its passage through Parliament; and the challenge of renewing our public services, with a secure long-term financial foundation for a reformed National Health Service. The Budget sets out the Government's strategy to raise Britain's national economic potential and achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment, with rising living standards for all.
	Last autumn, in the wake of September 11th, the world saw a fall in business confidence, declining markets and volatile oil prices, which posed major and simultaneous challenges to the stability and continued growth of the British economy. In the past, when the world suffered a downturn, it was Britain that usually entered weaker and suffered longer. Successive governments were unable to sustain economic growth, constrained by high inflation and high borrowing.
	This time, from a platform of low inflation and fiscal discipline, both delivered through the new monetary and fiscal framework, we have been able to steer a steady course. The Bank of England has been able to adjust policy at the right time and in the right way, last year cutting interest rates seven times. Monetary policy has been supported by fiscal policy and we have, despite the difficulties, safeguarded both stability and growth.
	The underlying state of our public finances remains strong. From 1997 we tightened fiscal policy by 4.5 per cent of national income. As a result we have been able to reduce net debt well below 40 per cent, not just in one year but across the economic cycle. With debt and debt interest payments down it has been possible, even with lower than expected revenues, to maintain our three-year spending plans for hospitals, schools, transport and public services, and to respond to the challenges since September 11th at home and abroad, all the while still meeting our fiscal rules.
	The envelope for public spending for the years to 2006 has been set. Current public spending will increase from £390 billion this year to £420 billion next year, to £444 billion in 2004–05 and £471 billion by 2005–06. Historically low levels of net public investment, which languished at 0.6 per cent of GDP in 1997, will be raised to 2 per cent of GDP by 2005–06.
	The Wanless report states that the NHS needs a long-term sustainable financial framework in support of reform and modernisation. It sets out the financial needs for the next two decades, starting with a five-year period of high and sustained growth. UK health spending will rise from 6.7 per cent of national income in 1997 and 7.7 per cent of national income this year, to 8.7 per cent by 2005-06 and to 9.4 per cent by 2007–08.
	One of the main long-term challenges facing the Government is to build a more prosperous Britain. That means higher productivity, higher investment and a strong national consensus on the importance of enterprise. As we press ahead with supply-side reforms to remove barriers to growth, the focus of the Budget is on two further sets of measures: encouraging higher levels of innovation and investment; and helping small and growing businesses. A productive Britain is also an inclusive Britain. Moving people from welfare to work and making work pay is at the centre of our strategy. Compared to 1997, there are now 1.5 million more people in work, giving Britain the best unemployment figures for 25 years. In the mid-1980s, 350,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 had been unemployed for more than a year. Today the figure is just 4,900.
	As we pursue our goals, all families will receive more support for bringing up their children. In the Budget we announced £2.5 billion of extra support for families, a family tax cut that will help nearly 6 million families. As a result, the direct tax burden on a family on average earnings with two children will be below 20 per cent. That is lower than it was in 1997 or any previous year since 1979.
	Public policy is all about choices. We have made ours. We have chosen in favour of a stable economy, low inflation and low interest rates. We have chosen in favour of an enterprise society: low levels of taxation, support for small business and reductions in red tape. We have chosen in favour of a fair society: extra help for children, for families and for pensioners, policies that make work pay. And we have chosen in favour of a healthier society with extra investment in a reformed NHS, funded through general taxation.
	That is the programme set out in the Budget and that, if the House approves, is the programme we will report to the European Commission. We are fulfilling our commitment under the Maastricht Act to report on our main economic policy measures and maintaining our position, developed by this Government, at the heart of the European Union policy process. I commend the resolution to the House.
	Moved, That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002–03, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002–03 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Motion to resolve in the masterly way that we have come to expect of him on these occasions. The noble Lord is very practised in such debates and probably he can anticipate what each of us is going to say. Our viewpoints on the state of the British economy and its prospects are well known and range from the Chancellor's one of being "cautiously optimistic", a phrase he used again in his Mansion House speech on 26th June, to my own rather more pessimistic but still hopeful stance, which is shared by many on both sides of the Atlantic.
	That comment reminds me that today is 4th July. Were it not for this debate, some of us might be helping the American Ambassador to celebrate the independence of his great country and the liberty that accompanied it. But, whatever else the Americans will be celebrating today, they will not be celebrating the state of the New York stock market, which is a fair but gloomy indicator of investors' assessment of the mighty economy of the United States and its prospects. The current depressed mood of the market appears to be very reluctant to change for the better in spite of low interest rates, and of course we see that mood reflected in the ebb tide of share prices in our own stock market and in other markets across the world. The FTSE 100 was at its lowest yesterday since April 1997. This has knocked on the head the Prime Minister's claim of 19th June that the market is,
	"massively up on where it was five years ago".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/02; col. 272.]
	Of course markets are volatile and sentiment variable, but they do tell us something about the economies of the world in which we live.
	I do not need to belabour the inter-dependence of the United States economy and our own, and, indeed, that of the euro zone. The euro zone, too, seems to catch cold when the American economy sneezes. That is not surprising bearing in mind the importance of the American export market to the euro zone as well as to the UK.
	The economic clouds over us all have darkened even since April when the Budget Report was published. Economic growth is proving very elusive. We all hope that growth will pick up as the year progresses, but it is clearly possible that the slow-down will continue and that the Government's target of 2 to 2.5 per cent growth for this year may not be achieved.
	The questions that arise in that event are obvious, but they must still be asked. If government revenue falls below the Chancellor's expectations and cautious optimism is dashed, how will the situation be remedied? Will the spending plans to which the Minister referred be curtailed, or borrowing and/or taxation increased? I suspect the latter alternatives will be favoured. The increase in national insurance contributions is still to come. I hope that the Government do not forget that a rising tax burden will retard economic growth still further.
	The Budget Report is disarming in its assurance that,
	"with sound public finances and low inflation, policy is well placed to respond to continuing risks".
	Exactly how well placed is policy, one wonders, to deal with the worst case scenario.
	If the current economic doldrums persist, they must affect the Government's thinking about joining the euro. The unemployment rates in the euro zone are not enticing. Neither are the spats between Italy, France and Germany and the European Commission over their lack of respect for the budget deficit constraints of the stability pact. Incidentally, can the Minister say whether the Government have to make a separate submission to the Commission under the pact?
	While the major countries appear able to resist the Commission's strictures, smaller countries such as Portugal are not so fortunate. My understanding is that Portugal faces austerity measures imposed by Brussels under threat of punitive sanctions, so becoming the first country to lose control over tax and spending policy as a result of joining the euro. That must give the Government pause.
	It was reported in February this year that the United Kingdom, too, has come under fire from the Commission for its spending plans. That was before the budget report and even though we have not yet joined the euro.
	I accept that this is an extremely difficult time to make an economic assessment which carries the hallmark of certainty. It is a time of global instability, disappointing corporate earnings, accounting scandals and uncertainties and continuing terrorist threats. Nevertheless, so far as the Official Opposition are concerned, we are content to take note of the Government's Motion.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I hope that the House will not know exactly what I am going to say. We shall see.
	The financial statement in April in the Budget Report was bold. It expected the economy to grow by 2 to 2.5 per cent a year. This now looks a fairly heroic assumption after two consecutive quarters when GDP grew by only 0.1 per cent. Certainly very few independent forecasters, in the City or elsewhere, now look through the same rose-tinted spectacles as the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this central forecast, the one on which his public spending plans will stand or fall.
	No economy is an island. I agree with both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that we could be vulnerable to another slow-down in the United States. But the international economic outlook is far from being all black. Confidence and activity across much of the euro zone have turned up noticeably since budget time. We must face the hard fact that many of our economic problems are home made and getting worse.
	What an impossible decision the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England had to face today in trying to set a one-size-fits-all interest rate for our two-speed economy. The Bank's latest estimates of consumer lending show that it is now back to its late 1980s peak as a proportion of gross disposable income. I received two letters pushing unsolicited new credit cards on me this morning, and we must have had 20 aggressive letters pushing credit through our letterbox over the past month. Is the Minister surprised that we have a debt-financed consumer boom, with both the main house price indices showing this week that over the whole of the UK—not only the South East—house prices have risen by 19 per cent over the past 12 months and are showing a dangerous acceleration, with prices up 11 per cent in the first half of this year and 2.3 per cent in the single month of June?
	Meanwhile, we have a massive balance of payments deficit, with most of manufacturing in deep recession and manufacturing employment down from almost 4.2 million when the Government took office to 3.7 million today. The Minister is right that unemployment in total remains low, but that is only because of rising employment in two sectors—building and the public sector—which has been masking job losses everywhere else over the past year.
	So imprudent economic policy is producing a lop-sided economy. With so much of industry and the service sector sluggish or in decline, how can the few remaining pockets of growth make the Chancellor's growth and spending forecasts add up? Someone or something substantial will have to ride to the rescue soon. Can the Minister see help on the horizon?
	This inevitably has been rather a mouse of a debate. The Budget and the economic and fiscal strategy reports are old news by now. But next year will be different. The Economic Affairs Select Committee of the House will be able for the first time to examine the Finance Bill in detail. We look forward to constructive discussion and informed debate with, dare we hope, the Treasury taking some notice of the improvements and amendments that our committee will propose. We will not roar; we will not have teeth; but we will speak with authority and relevant practical experience, and we will be heard.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both speakers for their responses. There are different views about the United Kingdom economy, although I have shown that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, are in the outer range of most forecasts and informed opinion. Apart from the general observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, three particular points deserve attention.
	As to the stock market, of course we must remain vigilant but the facts underlying the UK economy are the same. It has low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and low tax burdens for business. Whatever the view of the markets in this country—the situation is more serious in other western countries—we have the right conditions in place to ensure that the impact of turbulence on equity markets is limited.
	The noble Lord asked whether we have to submit evidence for the stability and growth pact. Member states in the single currency must submit stability programmes while non-participating members submit convergence programmes for annual examination by ECOFIN. They outline the country's medium-term fiscal strategy. The UK submitted its last convergence programme based on the contents of the pre-Budget report in December 2001.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked also about the convergence programme early warning system. In the last round of stability and convergence programmes, the Commission recommended that Germany and Portugal should receive early warning letters and formal recommendations advising the member state concerned to take prompt measures to prevent divergence of its budgetary position from one close to balance or in surplus, which is the requirement. The council decided at its last meeting that such early warnings would be inappropriate. The German and Portuguese Governments instead issued statements expressing their commitment to fiscal discipline over the coming years. No early warning letters have been issued.
	I find it more difficult to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, because although he casts general gloom he does so in general terms and is somewhat at the edge of informed opinion. The growth assumptions underlying the budget forecasts were cautious and realistic. Government forecasting recently has an excellent record—rather better than the average of independent forecasters, against which we constantly compare it.
	Our statistics are that following the latest revisions, the level of GDP in the first quarter of this year is higher than anticipated. We made upward revisions to growth in 1999-2000 and the last two quarters, which more than offset the downward revisions of growth in 2001. We made upward revisions to GDP growth in 2000 and the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year show more momentum in the economy than was previously estimated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to the problems of manufacturing industry. We recognise the difficulties being experienced because of the slowdown in the world economy. The noble Lord did not make a point on this occasion about interest rates and the weak euro—so often a theme of debates in your Lordships' House. The most important thing for manufacturers and other businesses is that the Budget maintains economic stability and takes action to encourage enterprise. Manufacturers will benefit from the research and development tax credit; the new zero corporation tax rate; the cut to 19 per cent in corporation tax for small firms; and the measures to boost training and skills.
	I can only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. Independent forecasts have been too pessimistic. Our forecasting record is good. We are conscious that the outturn for the past year of 2.25 per cent was in line with our pre-Budget reports and Budget statements on every occasion since 1999. That is a good record and we are confident that the forecasts contained in the Budget reports that are to be submitted to the European Commission in conformity with Section 5 of the European Communities Act 1972 are valid and realistic.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.